- University of Alabama at Birmingham

Transcription

EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Lynn Kirkland, University of Alabama at Birmingham, [email protected]
MANAGING EDITORS
Jennifer Summerlin, University of Alabama at Birmingham, [email protected]
Kelly L. Hill, University of Alabama at Birmingham, [email protected]
TECHNICAL EDITOR
Matthew Fifolt, University of Alabama at Birmingham, [email protected]
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Tyler Bryant, University of Alabama at Birmingham, [email protected]
EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Deborah Wooten, University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee
Kathryn Whitmore, University of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky
Sherron Roberts, University of Central Florida in Orlando, Florida
Todd Cherner, Portland State University in Portland, Oregon
Candace Kuby, University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri
Stephen Kucer, Washington State University in Vancouver, Washington
Rick Meyer, University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico
Patricia Crawford, University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Daniel Ferguson, Teachers College, Columbia University in New York, New York
EDITORIAL OFFICE
University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Maryann Manning Family Literacy Center,
School of Education, EB 127, 901 South 13th Street, Birmingham, AL 35294-1250; (205) 975MMFL(6635); e-mail: [email protected]
MID-SOUTH LITERACY JOURNAL
The University of Alabama at Birmingham, in partnership with The Mid-South Reading/Writing
Institute, has established this peer-reviewed online journal, The Mid-South Literacy Journal
(MLJ). This new online, peer-reviewed journal is dedicated to disseminating and extending
scholarship through original research and practice articles in literacy education. MLJ highlights
constructivist-based literacy theory and practice that places the child at the center of the learning
process and furthers the legacy of Dr. Maryann Manning. Each journal features a focus on
teachers’ perspectives about issues in the field along with contemporary releases in children’s
literature. Utilizing a combination of real-world classroom applications and concrete theoretical
framework, the journal provides bi-yearly publications each fall and spring.
MANUSCRIPT AND SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
For more information about submitting an original manuscript to MLJ, visit:
http://www.uab.edu/education/mlj/submissions
Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Authorization to
photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is
granted by restricted.
ISSN 2471-4453
The publisher assumes no responsibility for any statements of fact or opinion expressed in the
published papers.
MID-SOUTH LITERACY JOURNAL
ISSN 2471-4453
Volume 1
Issue 2
Spring 2016
CONTENTS
Overview of Issue
Jennifer Summerlin
1
Research
Changing times: Preparing pre-service social studies teachers to teach
disciplinary literacy skills
Todd Sloan Cherner and Kristal Curry
2
The effects of literacy professional development
Melanie Brandon Maxwell, Katie Edwards Schrodt, and Michelle Medline Hasty
35
Literature Review
Factors contributing to the university/school divide in teacher education: A systematic
literature review
Jennifer Summerlin
46
Practice
“This is how we get along”: Transmediation as a tool for thinking
Christine H. Leland, Ann Ociepka, and Ann Mennonno
60
Dr. Maryann Manning’s achievements were significant, the products of her boundless
energy, unfaltering determination and deep commitment to children. Dr. Manning’s
footprint can be seen in the many projects that the UAB School of Education is known for
today. Dr. Manning authored numerous books, book chapters, monographs, and articles
that have guided and inspired educators throughout Alabama and beyond. Organizations
around the world esteemed her with awards and accolades. She was particularly honored
and excited to serve as a future president of the International Reading Association. At the
time of her death, she was working at a literacy conference in Indonesia, doing what she
loved.
Mid-South Literacy Journal
www.uab.edu/education/mlj
Overview of Issue
The manuscripts chosen for this second issue of MLJ promote effective and innovative
research and practices in literacy education (P-16). The articles cover research and theory,
pedagogical principles, and recent trends and issues within the field of literacy education.
Todd Cherner from Portland State University and Kristal Curry from Coastal Carolina
University provide a case study of pre-service social studies teachers transitioning from being
students under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation to teachers required to implement
Common Core Standards for History/Social Studies. Results from this study confirm previous
research identifying the role of a teacher’s educational experiences as a student in shaping his or her
instructional practices and decisions as a teacher of learning. This study is a powerful example of the
complex issues facing teacher educators in their work to reform the teacher certification process.
Melanie Brandon Maxwell and Michelle Medlin Hasty from Lipscomb University and Katie
Edwards Schrodt from New Hope Academy offer a mixed methods study focused on the effects of
literacy professional development for changing teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of a balanced
approach to literacy. Research results demonstrate increased levels of intentional language,
intentional classroom practices, reflection, and knowledge of literacy best-practices among study
participants from one private elementary school serving students from preschool through fourth
grade.
Jennifer Summerlin from the University of Alabama at Birmingham presents a systematic
literature review of current literature and research in teacher education. The author describes three
categories of factors that contribute to the university/school divide. The university/school divide
refers to the inability of novice teachers to effectively implement the previously learned researchbased best practices from the teacher education program in the early childhood/ elementary education
classroom. Summerlin highlights the value of rethinking teacher certification programs to increase
teaching efficacy, student achievement, and instructional effectiveness among beginning teachers
working with children in preschool through sixth grade.
Christine H. Leland and Anne Ociepka from Indiana University and Ann Mennonno, from
Center for Inquiry #27 of the Indianapolis Public Schools describe the potent effects of art for
meaning making with first and second grade children. The authors explore transmediation, a complex
task involving the transformation of text into art, music, dance, or drama, for understanding a text
more deeply with children of diverse backgrounds and varying socio-economic levels. The use of
multimodal transmediation in the early childhood classroom provides a window into the depth of
thinking demonstrated by young children who are actively constructing meaning from text.
The authors who contributed to this second issue of MLJ examined the challenges
surrounding teacher educators working to improve pre-service and in-service teacher quality, the
overall teacher certification process, and the deeply ingrained belief systems of teachers that are
formed by traditional educational experiences. Authors also describe the use of transmediation as a
tool for young children to deeply understanding and share their thinking about text. We are hopeful
that the featured manuscripts included in this issue will stimulate discussion and foster innovative
practices beginning with teacher educators and continuing to current and future classroom
practitioners.
Volume 1 Issue 2
1
Spring 2016
Cherner, T. S., & Curry, K.
Changing Times: Preparing Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers
to Teach Disciplinary Literacy Skills
Todd Sloan Cherner
Portland State University
Kristal Curry
Coastal Carolina University
This case study examined how a cohort of 16 pre-service social studies teachers transitioned from
being students while No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was implemented to being teachers of a new
generation of standards. To study this transition, the authors analyzed 75 lesson plans created by
cohort members to identify which Grade 9/10 Common Core Standards for History/Social Studies
they planned to teach. The analysis indicated that pre-service teachers were including the Key
Ideas and Details standards at significantly higher rates than the Craft and Structure or the
Integration of Knowledge standards, and the Key Ideas and Details standards were most closely
aligned with the standards used by NCLB. This conclusion is consistent with previously
conducted research suggesting pre-service teachers’ instructional philosophies are often formed
by their own experiences as students. This finding is significant because changing teaching
practices from covering content in social studies classrooms to developing students’ disciplinary
literacy skills is a challenge that requires confronting previously held beliefs about social studies
instruction.
Keywords: disciplinary literacy, pre-service teachers, social studies
Introduction
Public education in the United States is experiencing a systemic, paradigmatic shift
(Khun, 2012). The standards-based education movement that was first called for by A Nation At
Risk (ANAR) (1983) and (re)affirmed by President Clinton’s Goals 2000 initiative and President
Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, both of which drew support from a
bipartisan base, ushered in an era of content-based standards. As a result, content-based
standards were eventually developed by each state to identify the exact knowledge and skills
students would be required to demonstrate on specific, grade-level tests (Friedman, 2006;
Marzano & Kendall, 1997; Redalevige, 2005). More recently, there has been a transition to a
new generation of standards. These new standards–hallmarked by the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) endorsed by the National Governors Association as well as the C3 Framework
created by the National Council of Social Studies and the Next Generation Science Standards
authored by the National Science Teachers Association–changed the very definition of what it
means to be prepared for postsecondary educational programs and the workforce. These new
standards move away from content-based standards that emphasized the memorization of facts
and lower-order thinking skills to pass standardized tests (Au, 2009; Salpeter, 2003) to
disciplinary literacy skill development (Zygouris-Coe, 2012).
Volume 1 Number 2
2
Spring 2016
At its essence, disciplinary literacy is defined as “[A]n emphasis on knowledge and
abilities possessed by those who create, communicate, and use knowledge within the disciplines”
(Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C., 2012, p. 8). Fang (2012) added that disciplinary literacy is “the
ability to engage in social, semiotic, and cognitive practices consistent with those of content
experts” (p. 19). Therefore, when students learn disciplinary literacy skills, they develop their
abilities to read, write, and interact with a variety of texts that comprise the different subject
areas (Beach, Thein, & Webb, 2012; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012), meaning students are taught
to read and write as mathematicians in math, as historians in social studies, as scientists in
science, and so forth (Fang, 2012; Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C., 2008). Whereas teaching
students disciplinary literacy skills is supported by the different professional organizations, as
evidenced by the recently released new generation of standards, this approach raises significant
challenges for teacher educators in terms of how to prepare their candidates.
As education is the only occupation where individuals complete a 13-year internship
before gaining any formal training, pre-service teachers already tend to have a strong
conceptualization for how they will teach their content based on how they were taught (Pajares,
1992). The crux, however, is that how they were taught during the era of NCLB is not how they
are expected to teach in this new age of standards that emphasizes teaching disciplinary literacy
skills in content areas. This creates “fallout” for teacher educators who must support pre-service
teachers in understanding that they must teach their content, inclusive of the disciplinary literacy
skills students need for the 21st century (Dede, 2010; Graves, M., Juel, Graves, B., & Dewitz,
2010). To that end, this paper used case study methodology (Hatch, 2002, Merriam 2009) to
explore how pre-service teachers entering the field of social studies education understood their
responsibility to teach disciplinary literacy skills. The primary research question was: How do
pre-service social studies teachers understand their responsibility to teach disciplinary literacy
skills–inclusive of text analysis, research, argument, and presentation skills–in order for their
future students to read and write as historians? To conduct this work, we analyzed a collection
of lesson plans produced by a cohort of pre-service social studies teachers to determine which
Grade 9/10 CCSS for History/Social Studies were covered.
To frame this discussion, we 1 first present critical pedagogy as our theoretical
framework. We see this framework as being appropriate because it analyzes a phenomenon for
power, which has direct implications for why an individual does or does not believe, practice, or
respond to a phenomenon. In this work, pre-service social studies teachers’ understanding of
teaching disciplinary literacy skills in their classroom was the phenomenon we analyzed, and
critical pedagogy lent itself to our understanding of it. Next, we offer an example of the impact
of federal educational policy on state standards, which leads into our analysis of the pre-service
social studies teachers’ lesson plans. We conclude by discussing our findings and making
recommendations to teacher educators regarding how they can support pre-service teachers in
understanding why teaching disciplinary literacy skills in their content area is needed.
1
In this article, “we” refers to the researchers who conducted this study.
Volume 1 Number 2
3
Spring 2016
Theoretical Framework
To ground our work, we used critical pedagogy as our guiding theory (Kincheloe, 2004).
Critical pedagogy is an offshoot from critical theory, which is a paradigm focused on
understanding power (Alvesson & Deetz, 1996; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002). Critical theory
pays specific attention to disadvantaged populations and how they have been marginalized or
oppressed by advantaged groups (Freire, 1970; Frye, 1983). This oppression may be obvious and
easily condemned (Hamilton & Ture, 1967) or it may be hidden in the institutions and social
interactions of a society (Donnelly et al., 2005; McIntosh, 1989). It is in this second, more
nuanced form of institutionalism where our study is based. Whereas Hamilton and Ture (1967)
and other scholars took a critical stance to analyze the marginalization of populations based on
skin color, sexual orientation, and English language proficiency among other grounds, we
viewed power in terms of policy.
In Kincheloe’s (2004) primer on critical pedagogy, the author discussed a belief termed
the Great Denial. Kincheloe (2004) stated:
An important aspect of the Great Denial is that politics should be kept out of education
and that is what mainstream curricula do. Critical pedagogy argues that such
pronouncements are not grounded on an understanding of power. The political
dimensions of education should be pointed out in all teaching and learning – critical
pedagogy included. We must expose the hidden politics of what is labeled neutral. Such
calls are often equated with a pedagogy of indoctrination. (p. 10)
A preeminent example of critical pedagogy is found in textbook adoption practices. For example,
there has been significant criticism of how minorities are represented in the adoption of new
social studies textbooks (Banks, 1998; Cruz, 1994; Salvucci, 1991). Though textbooks are
intended to be neutral and apolitical, critical pedagogy contends that they are political.
Textbooks are documents presented to students as knowledge to be learned, objective truth.
From a critical pedagogical perspective, textbooks are anything but neutral. The way in which
they represent minorities, rewrite history, and cater to the ruling class are all political ideologies
embedded within “supposedly” mainstream curricula (Loewen, 2007; Zinn, 2005). From this
perspective, critical pedagogy can be applied to educational policy as well.
The shift away from NCLB to this new generation of standards is creating tension
because of political power. While there is a belief that educational policy should be free of
politics, this belief is unfounded. NCLB represented a particular political ideology (Ravitch,
2010), and these new standards represent a different political ideology (Manna & Ryan, 2011;
Zhao, 2009). From a critical pedagogical perspective, pre-service teachers who came of age
while NCLB was being implemented and who plan to teach in this new educational age will
experience tensions due to educational politics. What they were taught to believe was good
educational practice under NCLB is in fact different from how schooling has evolved into
something new. By taking a critical pedagogical perspective in this paper, we can more easily
understand the roots of our participants’ teaching philosophies; it provided us with a political and
theoretical context for this study.
Volume 1 Number 2
4
Spring 2016
An Evolution of Standards-based Education in the United States
ANAR was a landmark report that ushered in the modern era of education (Gardner et al.,
1983; Symcox, 2002; Vinovskis, 2009), and one of its recommendations was to create
benchmarks, or standards, for student performance. “Schools, colleges, and universities adopt
more rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for academic performance”
(Gardner et al., 1983, p. 18). This recommendation led to the standards-based education reform
in the United States (DeBoer, 2000; Delandshere & Petrosky, 2004), which became mandated in
2001 with the passing of NCLB (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002).
The standards used by NCLB are content-based, meaning each standard “describes what
students should know and be able to do” (Marzano & Kendall, 1997, p.12). When the
accountability system for NCLB was implemented, it was aligned to content-based standards and
emphasized lower-order thinking skills needed to pass standardized tests (Mathis, 2003; Salpeter,
2003). One problem with NCLB use of content-based standards was that over 60% of students
who graduated from high school while NCLB was implemented had to take remedial, non-credit
earning courses before beginning their college coursework (Southern Regional Education Board,
2010; Wiener & Hall, 2004). In response, a new generation of performance-based standards was
implemented.
Marzano and Kendall (1997) explained that a performance-based standard “describes a
specific use of knowledge and skills: it is not a description of knowledge, but a description of
some application of it” (p.14). Performance-based standards do not just identify the knowledge
or skill that content-based standards do; rather, they require students to use that knowledge or
skill to achieve a learning task. In this way, the new generation of standards are performancebased and require students to possess the disciplinary literacy skills needed to complete advanced
learning tasks (Shanahan, 2009; Zygouris-Coe, 2012), which is reflected in the CCSS for
History/Social Studies.
The grades 6-12 CCSS for Social Studies/History are organized by three main branches:
(1) Key Ideas and Details, (2) Craft and Structure, and (3) Integration of Knowledge and Ideas.
We operationalized these branches as:
• Key Ideas and Details: Building students’ ability to read primary and secondary
sources, so they understand the provenance and meaning of textual evidence and
are able to use that evidence to determine what caused historical events to happen
and how historical events relate to each other.
• Craft and Structure: Developing students’ text analysis skills so they can first
recognize how an author uses text structure and subject-specific language to build
an argument and then compare how multiple authors use those elements
differently when arguing about the same topic.
• Integration of Knowledge and Ideas: Deepening students’ understanding of the
background knowledge they bring to a text, which helps them to first interpret the
quantitative and qualitative data an author uses to evaluate the central argument
and then to draw conclusions about how multiple authors who are writing about
the same topic use this data to support their positions.
These branches are overarching ideas embedded in the CCSS for History/Social Studies, and
each branch contains applications that require students to use their knowledge for a learning task.
The CCSS uses grade-band progressions (e.g., grades 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12) so students begin
developing their disciplinary literacy for social studies in grades 6-8 and then deepen those
Volume 1 Number 2
5
Spring 2016
performance-based skills in the 9-10 and 11-12 grade bands. As the federal government has
endorsed the transition from NCLB to the CCSS, it has impacted the standards used by states.
Comparing South Carolina Social Studies Standards under NCLB to those of the CCSS
In this section, we present an analysis of the South Carolina Social Studies Academic
Standards for two reasons. First, there are two iterations of these standards, and each iteration
reflects the federal government’s educational agenda. The 2005 iteration (reproduced in
Appendix A) represents the content-based standards used by NCLB, and the 2011 iteration
(reproduced in Appendix B) represents the shift to performance-based standards and disciplinary
literacy skills used by the CCSS. Second, the majority of the pre-service social studies teachers
whose lesson plans were analyzed graduated from a South Carolina high school, so they were
students of the 2005 iteration of these standards. As such, an analysis of these standards provides
an epistemological context for this study.
To guide this comparison, the sets of standards were analyzed based on their rigor using
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DoK) (Webb, 2007), a commonly used framework for evaluating
rigor (Hess, 2006; Hess et al., 2009; Wyse & Viger, 2011). Webb’s DoK uses four levels for
identifying rigor – (1) Recall, (2) Skill/Concept, (3) Strategic Thinking, and (4) Extended
Thinking – and each level has specific verbs attributed to it. In our analysis of the South Carolina
standards for social studies, we analyzed the “action words” in each standard; we defined action
words as a word or phrase that describes a specific task students are to complete (and some
standards contained multiple action words). According to our analysis, the 2005 standards were
less rigorous than the 2011 standards, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Comparative Analysis of the South Carolina’s 2005 and 2011 Standards Using DoK Levels
Webb’s DoK
Level
Level One:
Recall
(2005) Number of
Action Words Found
14
(2005) Action Words
Listed
Measure, calculate,
ask, where, why, what,
how, record
observations, use (5),
locate
(2011) Number of
Action Words Found
3
Level Two:
Skill/Concept
22
Distinguish, establish
(chronological order),
interpret (8), make
observations (4),
consider
(perspectives), gather,
process, organize (3),
select, develop
9
Examine, trace, describe (across
cultures), interpret (2), make
inferences (2), compare,
communicate
Level Three:
Strategic
Thinking
5
11
Make decisions, assess, draw
conclusions (3), explain (5),
support (analysis)
Level Four:
Extended
Thinking
5
Explain, construct
(maps), challenge
(arguments), evaluate,
plan
Create, demonstrate
(citizenship),
synthesize, design,
apply
17
Extrapolate, evaluate (3),
analyze (6), synthesize (2),
model, assume (responsibility),
value, create, determine validity
Volume 1 Number 2
6
(2011) Actions Words Listed
Use, represent, utilize
Spring 2016
The 2005 standards’ mean level of action words was 2.02, which illustrates that the largest
number of action words was aligned to Level Two (Skill/Concept) with Level One (Recall) being
close behind. This analysis illustrates that the standards emphasized lower-order thinking skills
according to DoK classifications, which aligns back to the lower-order thinking skills required
by NCLB’s use of content-based standards (Mathis, 2003; Salpeter, 2003). Conversely, the 2011
standards’ mean level of action words was 3.05, and the largest number of action words was
categorized into the Level Four, (Extended Thinking) category. These standards were weighted
more heavily toward the higher-level strategic and extended thinking levels, which align more
closely to the performance-based standards used by the CCSS.
Why it Matters: Pre-service Teachers’ Socialization
The previous section demonstrated how expectations for social studies teachers have
shifted from NCLB’s use of content-based standards to the performance-based standards used by
the CCSS. The challenge, as it relates to pre-service social studies teachers, is that the way they
were taught during their K-12 schooling as students is not how they are to lead instruction as
teachers. This represents a significant challenge because individuals begin forming their teaching
philosophies while they are still K-12 students (Pajares, 1992).
Scholars have identified the processes by which pre-service teachers filter new
knowledge through preexisting attitudes and beliefs. For example, Lortie (1975) famously
described the “apprenticeship of observation,” where students learn about teaching through
“intuitive and imitative rather than explicit and analytical” means (p. 62). Britzman’s (2003)
existential study of the identity formation of pre-service teachers attempted to explain why their
experiences as K-12 students are so pervasive and unchangeable.
Just as we try to make from our learning a narrative of what we think has happened, we
are also learning the happenstance of narrative…that narrative is always on the cusp of
myth even as it tries to allay contradictions and dramatic conflict. (p. 20)
In other words, the “historical narratives” we tell ourselves about our own education take on a
mythical, unchanging quality the more we tell them to ourselves, and it is this area where our
study is rooted. By analyzing this cohort’s lesson plans, we were able to analyze how the
coursework impacted their conceptualization of what it means to teach social studies.
Methodology
For this study, we utilized a case study methodology (Glense, 2006; Merriam, 2009). The
phenomenon of interest was how pre-service social studies teachers conceptualized their
responsibility to teach disciplinary literacy skills in their classroom. A closed coding procedure
(Coffey & Atkinson, 1996) was used because we were interested in a specific topic of study: to
identify which Grade 9/10 CCSS for History/Social Studies the pre-service social studies
teachers aligned their lesson plans to and the frequency of that alignment.
Context
This case study took place during the 2013-2014 school year, and it analyzed lesson plans
produced by pre-service teachers enrolled in a 14-month Masters of Arts in Teaching (M.A.T.)
Volume 1 Number 2
7
Spring 2016
program. The M.A.T. program is accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of
Teacher Education and is offered by a public university located in the southeast United States.
During the 2013-2014 school year, this university’s M.A.T. program served 69 preservice teachers, who were earning their initial teacher licensure in a range of subjects, including
English language arts, math, social studies, science, music, and art. The program coursework
begins in June and ends in July of the following year. Overall, pre-service teachers take 12
hours’ worth of content courses and 33 hours of educational courses, which includes two
practicums in the fall semester and a full internship in the spring. Additionally, during the fall
semester, pre-service teachers take15 hours’ worth of educational courses that includes a
content-specific methods course. To complete the M.A.T. program, all pre-service teachers must
pass the Praxis content knowledge exam for their academic discipline(s) and the Principles of
Learning and Teaching exam.
Participants
As this study focused on history/social studies, only demographics for candidates who
were members of the history/social studies cohort are reported in Table 2.
Table 2
Demographic Report for the 2013-2014 History/Social Studies M.A.T. Cohort
Male
9
Female
7
White
14
Non-White
2
Total
16
As shown in Table 2, the majority of students were White, which follows national racial trends
of pre-service teachers (Feitstritzer, 2011), and the gender leaned slightly towards male.
Lesson Plan Analysis Procedures
To assess pre-service teachers’ conceptualization of disciplinary literacy instruction in the
field of social studies, we analyzed 75 lesson plans created by the pre-service teachers as
assignments in their social studies methods course. To guide the analysis, the Grade 9/10 CCSS
for Literacy in History/Social Studies was used because of its alignment to the South Carolina
Social Studies Academic Standards and the C3 Framework.
To code the lesson plans, we recruited two graduate research assistants (GRAs) earning
advanced degrees in literacy. The GRAs had a deep knowledge of the CCSS before being
recruited and were trained how to code the lesson plans using the coding table listed in Appendix
C. The GRAs were trained by first reviewing the specific wording of the Grade 9/10 CCSS for
History/Social Studies and the procedures for a close coding methodology, whereby they would
analyze the lesson plans against previously identified categories (Golsteijn & Hoven, 2011). On
the coding table, a column was created for each Grade 9/10 CCSS for History/Social Studies.
When the GRAs read a lesson plan, they coded it by placing a tally mark in the applicable
column each time they identified a standard being taught. To ensure the GRAs understood the
coding procedures, the researchers modeled this process using two lesson plans and then had the
GRAs practice this technique. Once the GRAs demonstrated they were capable of coding the
lesson plans, they were entrusted to code all 75 lesson plans.
In all, it took four weeks for the GRAs to code all of the lesson plans. Once the lesson
plans were returned, we spot-checked the GRAs’ work by choosing three lesson plans at random
Volume 1 Number 2
8
Spring 2016
and coding them. When compared to the GRAs’ coding, we found our coding matched within
one tally mark, which demonstrated data reliability.
Finally, tally marks made by the GRAs were totaled, marked for each standard, and
divided into the total tally marks to find their frequency percentage. Working with frequency
percentages opposed to raw scores was beneficial because it clearly illustrated the area(s) of
emphasis, which allowed for implications to be made.
We viewed this work as a qualitative act because the GRAs were interpreting lesson
plans for meaning. Although they were quantitatively documenting the different instances of the
disciplinary literacy practices they found in the lesson plans, they were sifting through that data
using their own ideas of literacy, standards, and instruction. In this way, the work they were
completing was an act of interpretation, not statistical analysis (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Hatch,
2002). Furthermore, finding a statistical, reliable correlative was not possible; instead, we
intended the frequency rate to prove the trustworthiness of our data because it highlighted trends
in the data, not absolute truths (Krefting, 1991). With these considerations, we viewed the trends
found in the GRAs’ coding of the data to highlight the standards that were taught most often.
Findings
Based on this analysis, pre-service teachers integrated the Key Ideas and Details
standards at significantly higher rates than the Craft and Structure and Integration of Knowledge
and Ideas standards as shown in Table 3. For a complete breakdown of the 75 lesson plans,
please see Appendix D.
Table 3
Breakdown of the Standards Covered by Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers
Standard 1:
Key Ideas and Details
Standard 2:
Standard 3:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.1
Frequency Percentage: 29%
Frequency Percentage: 32.2%
Craft and Structure
Standard 1:
Standard 2:
Standard 3:
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
Standard 1:
Standard 2:
Standard 3:
Frequency Percentage: .9%
Key Ideas and Details Standards
Of the three branches, the Key Ideas and Detail standards were included the most often, and
they were found in 77.4% of the lesson plans analyzed. The specific standards are:
1. Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources,
attending to such features as the date and origin of the information (CCSS.ELALITERACY.RH.9-10.1)
Volume 1 Number 2
9
Spring 2016
2. Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an
accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text
(CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.2)
3. Analyze in detail a series of events described in a text; determine whether earlier events
caused later ones or simply preceded them (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.3)
The first standard in this group requires students to correctly cite dates and origins of
information to support an interpretation of different sources, meaning students search through
one piece of text for specific information. Teachers can have students complete that task by
answering questions that follow a reading. This type of learning task follows a “read-and-recite”
style of teaching that was emphasized by NCLB’s use of content-based standards (Pace, 2011); it
was found in 29.4% of the lesson plans analyzed. The second standard, similar to the first, also
requires students to “read-and-recite” the main ideas in a text by writing summaries about how
major concepts evolve in a text. The main difference between these standards is that the second
standard requires students to discern the main ideas via a summary; whereas, the first standard
requires students only to cite specific information to support their analysis of a text. Although
these two standards are similar, the second standard was found in the lesson plans slightly more
often (32.2% vs. 29.4%). Having students write and support their opinions about a text, as
required by the first standard, represents a more rigorous task to teach because it requires
students to evaluate a text, not just summarize it.
The third standard, which was found in only 15.8% of the lesson plans, is also the most
rigorous of this group. This standard requires students to deeply evaluate a chain of events and
identify if a causal relationship existed between the events or if the events were unrelated. To
satisfy this standard, students had to identify the different events that took place in a text and
then evaluate if the events were connected or independent of each other. Once students decided if
the events were connected or not, it was implicit in this standard that students communicate their
findings.
Craft and Structure Standards
The Craft and Structure standards were found in 15.9% of the lesson plans analyzed; the
specific standards are:
1. Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including
vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of history/social science
2. Analyze how a text uses structure to emphasize key points or advance an explanation or
analysis (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.5)
3. Compare the point of view of two or more authors for how they treat the same or similar
topics, including which details they include and emphasize in their respective accounts
By analyzing these standards with DoK (Webb, 2007), Craft and Structure standards were
found to be more rigorous than the Key Ideas and Details standards. The first standard in this
group requires students to analyze the language used in text. This standard was identified in only
5.1% of the lesson plans, which indicates teaching vocabulary skills did not significantly factor
Volume 1 Number 2
10
Spring 2016
into pre-service teachers’ conceptions of lesson planning. The second standard requires students
to use their knowledge of text structure to deduce a text’s main ideas or how it explains a key
point; this was found in only 1.2% of the lesson plans.
The third standard, which requires students to compare how two or more authors describe
and explain a topic, was found in 9.6% of lesson plans. A reason for this finding is that a central
tenet of quality social studies instruction is to not only tell the “victor’s tale” but also include the
narrative and experiences of the non-victorious group(s) (Zinn, 2005), so this was an aspect of
disciplinary literacy familiar to the pre-service teachers. However, the way this standard reads, it
does not require higher-order thinking skills that pertain to disciplinary literacy; rather, the
standard only requires students to summarize key points in the different accounts and how those
key points compare with one another. Although this standard received greater amounts of
instruction than the other standards in this group, its rigor was lower.
Integration of Knowledge Standards
The Integration of Knowledge standards were found in only 6.7% lessons analyzed; the
standards read:
1. Integrate quantitative or technical analysis (e.g., charts, research data) with qualitative
analysis in print or digital text (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.7)
2. Assess the extent to which the reasoning and evidence in a text support the author's
claims (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.8)
3. Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary
sources (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.9)
This group of standards places the highest level of disciplinary literacy demands on students.
For example, the first standard requires students to synthesize different types of data and data
sets into a traditional or digital text that they create. This standard then requires teachers to
develop both students’ data analysis and writing abilities. The type of writing required by this
standard represents a different type of writing than traditional constructed-responses essays, and
is more closely aligned to Document-Based Questions and essays (O’Connor et al., 2007). This
type of writing is different from composing traditional essays because it requires students to
analyze a variety of data sets (e.g., charts, maps, political commentary) before drawing
conclusions about how each piece of data factors into a decision. This standard comprised only
2.9% of the literacy elements in the lesson plans.
The second standard, which was found in only 0.9% of the lesson plans, requires students
to evaluate how an author justifies a claim made in a piece of text. To satisfy this standard,
students need to understand the different types of evidence and justifications that can be used to
support an author’s claim and then analyze if/how an author uses them. This type of analysis is
steeped in higher-order disciplinary literacy skills, and it is a key skill for quality social studies
instruction. This standard requires students to interpret evidence and then make claims based on
that evidence. The low frequency percentage of this standard suggests these pre-service teachers
did not actively consider how they would teach students to recognize the nuances of an author’s
claims and support, even if it is a task they would request of their students.
Finally, the third standard was found in only 2.9% of the lesson plans, and it requires
students to analyze different sources to compare how multiple authors attend to the same topic.
Volume 1 Number 2
11
Spring 2016
This standard is unique in that students are the ones who are required to find and read the
different sources. In other standards, students were given those sources. As such, this standard
requires students have both a deeper understanding of content and greater skill development to
locate sources and analyze them. In all, the combined low percentages for the standards in this
branch indicate that these pre-service teachers were significantly less likely to include these
aspects of disciplinary literacy into their instructional planning.
Discussion
This study’s findings lend themselves to an ongoing discussion regarding the purpose of
social studies education. Schneider et al. (1994) explained “The primary purpose of social
studies is to help young people make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as
citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world” (p. 3). This
statement was printed in the National Council of Social Studies’ curriculum standards and, as
such, was widely adopted by social studies educators. It defined the purpose of social studies as
preparing students to actively engage a democratic society.
A decade later, Ross and Marker (2005) offered a passionate critique and warning of the
way in which social studies may be used for indoctrination into “movement conservatism… [and
not for]… intellectual pluralism” (p. 4). Ross and Marker (2005) saw social studies as being a
way to appreciate diversity and celebrate cultures’ individualism and uniqueness, but they were
concerned that social studies curricula could be informed by conservatives’ political agendas. In
the conclusion of their paper, Ross and Marker (2005) call for a discussion regarding the very
foundations of social studies, inclusive of its importance for developing students into active
citizens who are prepared to engage our rapidly changing world.
It is time for social studies educators to engage in a dialogue that creates a contemporary
social studies curriculum that is relevant to our students, meets the needs of our rapidly
changing society, and prepares citizens to fully participate in a democracy. Decisions that
were made about the organization of the social studies in the early part of the 20th century
are still affecting the direction of contemporary social studies. (p. 10)
This dialogue–whether it took place in our school hallways, government buildings,
professional conferences, or elsewhere –resulted in the CCSS and the C3 Framework. The
adoption of these new sets of standards redefined the way in which social studies is to remain
relevant to students. The rub, however, is that the findings demonstrate the pre-service teachers
in this study understand social studies to be based in the transmission of knowledge via activities
that promote lower-order thinking skills, which was popular in the 20th century (Thorton, 1994;
Wade & Moje, 2001). It is this mindset that must change if social studies teachers are going to
develop the disciplinary literacy skills in their students, which are needed to pass accountability
tests and become participatory citizens who actively engage in their society. Moreover, the
“fallout” teacher educators must contend with is the disconnection between what pre-service
teachers in this study planned to teach in the classroom versus the purpose of social studies
education.
In Kincheloe’s (2004) description of critical pedagogy and the Great Denial, the author
explained that politics was embedded in education, though education is presented as being
apolitical. The content-based standards that were part of NCLB left an imprint on the pre-service
Volume 1 Number 2
12
Spring 2016
teachers who were students when those standards were in place. Those standards and the style of
education used to teach them were formative to the pre-service teachers, who began shaping their
educational philosophies while high school students (Pajares, 1992; Smagorinsky et al., 2004).
This study’s findings suggest that pre-service teachers had yet to alter their already-established
beliefs about what it means to teach social studies at the time of this study, which has
implications for future research.
The effectiveness of teacher preparation programs–both traditional colleges of education
and alternative certification programs–needs to be analyzed. Both qualitative and quantitative
studies that use best research practices to analyze pre-service teachers’ beliefs about effective
social studies instruction and how to prepare them so they embed disciplinary literacy activities
into their future teaching need to be conducted.
Another consideration related to critical pedagogy is that assessments used to analyze
social studies students are still standardized and high stakes. For example, South Carolina’s endof-course exam for American history is comprised of 55 multiple-choice questions in which
“Care is taken in creating possible responses so that each question has one correct answer and
three incorrect options that represent common errors in reasoning. The test questions are not
meant to be tricky” (South Carolina Department of Education, 2011, p. 3). These assessments
continue a tradition of empowering an outside group–whether it be a board commissioned by a
state department of education, a private company, or a taskforce made up of national educational
experts–to create them. A test-based accountability system still means a business model is being
applied to education (Ravitch, 2010). Regardless if the CCSS and C3 Framework are higher
quality standards and use higher quality assessments than those used by NCLB (Conley, 2011),
standardized assessments are still being used to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable,
and the standards come with political implications.
In order for social studies to keep its relevancy and prepare students to become effective
citizens, its teachers must embed disciplinary literacy skills into their instruction. Based on this
study’s findings, this is not happening. Teacher educators who prepare social studies pre-service
teachers must ensure that disciplinary literacy skills are part of their instruction. If this does not
happen, the type of education students receive in their high school social studies classes risks
returning back to the kind offered during the1990s (Newmann, 1990; Onosko, 1991).
Limitations
The main limitations of this study are generalizability and types of data collected. First,
this study’s data set is relatively small, covering only one cohort of pre-service teachers from a
single location. This was a deliberate choice on the part of the researchers, given the qualitative
nature of the research question studied. This choice does limit the conclusions that can be drawn
to the participants themselves; however, more general discussions can emerge from the findings
of this study. Second, this study only analyzed the lesson plan documents produced by the preservice teachers. Interview data were not selected based on concerns regarding: (1) pre-service
teachers’ knowledge of educational policy, (2) the feasibility of collecting interview data from
pre-service teachers, and (3) the impact the interviews may have had on pre-service teachers as
they progressed through their teacher education program. As such, we decided that it was in the
best interest of the research to not interview participants.
Volume 1 Number 2
13
Spring 2016
Conclusion
Teacher educators need to explicitly teach their pre-service teachers, who were taught
while NCLB’s content-based standards were implemented, how to incorporate disciplinary
literacy into their teaching. Because they did not experience the CCSS as K-12 students, they are
unlikely to intuitively craft lesson plans that teach those standards or the disciplinary literacy
skills they represent. From a critical pedagogical perspective, this is the “fallout” teacher
educators are attending to because of NCLB’s political ideologies. Whereas the pre-service
teachers assume they were taught in a “correct” style during their K-12 education, it was steeped
in a political ideology that privileged content-based standards over performance-based standards.
The analyses included here did not indicate intentional efforts to disregard disciplinary literacy.
Indeed, without any requirement that they do so, some of the pre-service teachers did cover
various 9/10 CCSS History/Social Studies standards within their lessons. Rather, the findings
from this analysis demonstrate that pre-service teachers were replicating the teaching practices
and standards they were familiar with based on their own high school educations.
To engage and change this mindset, there are practices that can be used for the purposeful
confrontation of pre-service teachers’ pre-existing beliefs. For example, Hollingsworth (1989)
paired pre-service teachers with mentor teachers who held contrasting pedagogical views.
Hollingsworth found that pre-service teachers who confronted their beliefs were more likely to
report changes regarding how they saw themselves as teachers and the instruction they provided.
Being forced to recognize the historical narratives of schooling they have developed allowed preservice teachers to envision teaching beyond their experiences as students.
In close, rather than requiring students to align lesson plans to the CCSS, pre-service
teachers can engage in dialogues with mentors and teacher educators about the purpose of social
studies. These discussions can challenge candidates’ pre-existing expectations of what it means
to teach social studies, which has implications for altering previously learned messages about the
role and purpose of disciplinary literacy in the social studies classroom. This level of
preparation—beyond the practice of teaching and into the notion of fostering a teaching
identity—is required for assisting pre-service teachers in managing the shift toward disciplinaryliteracy skill development. With expert guidance, teacher educators can support pre-service
social studies teachers in shifting their future instructional practices from being anchored in
content-based standards to performance-based standards and disciplinary literacy skills.
References
Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (2002). Schools that work: Where all children read and
write. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and postmodern approaches to organizational
studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds), Handbook of organization studies. (pp.
191-217). London: Sage.
Armor, D. J. (2006, August 16). Can NCLB close the achievement gap? Teachers College
Record (ID Number: 12667). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.edu.org
Au, W. (2009). Social studies, social justice: W (h) ither the social studies in high-stakes
testing? Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(1), 43-58.
Banks, J. A. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a
multicultural society. Educational Researcher, 27(7), 4-17.
Volume 1 Number 2
14
Spring 2016
Beach, R., Thein, A. H., & Webb, A. (2012). Teaching to exceed the English Language Arts
Common Core State Standards: A literacy practices approach for 6-12 classrooms. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in
the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education,
39(2), 175-189.
Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making Sense of qualitative data: Complementary research
strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014). Standards in your State. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/.
Conley, D. T. (2011). Building on the common core. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 16-20.
Crawford, J. (2004, September). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school
accountability for English language learners. National Center for Bilingual Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.nabe.org/Resources/Documents/NCLB%20page/NABE_on_NCLB.pdf
Cronin, J., Dahlin, M., Adkins, D., & Kingsbury, G. G. (2007). The proficiency illusion.
Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Institute. Retrieved from ERIC database.
(ED498573)
Cruz, B. C. (1994). Stereotypes of Latin Americans perpetuated in secondary school history
textbooks. Latino Studies Journal, 1(1), 51-67.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary
meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt
(Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51-76). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. (2004). Political rationales and ideological stances of the
standards-based reform of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20(1), 1-15.
Donnelly, D. A., Cook, K. J., Van Ausdale, D., & Foley, L. (2005). WP, color blindness, and
services to battered women. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 6-37.
Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language
Disorders, 32(1), 19-34.
Feistritzer, C. E. (2011). Profile of teachers in the U.S. 2011. National Center for Education
Information. Retrieved from http://www.ncei.com/Profile_Teachers_US_2011.pdf
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed, (Myra Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY:
Continuum.
Friedman, A. (2006). State standards and digital primary sources: A divergence. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(3), 313-327.
Frye, M. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Trumansburg, NY: The
Gossing Press.
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W., & Campbell, A. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Volume 1 Number 2
15
Spring 2016
Glense, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Golsteijn, C., & Hoven, E. (2011). Facilitating communication about books through an online
community. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(2), 197-217.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C. F., Graves, B. B., & Dewitz, P. F. (2010) Teaching reading in the 21st
century: Motivating all learners. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). London:
Sage.
Hamilton, C., & Ture, K. (1967). Black power: Politics of liberation in America. New York, NY:
Vintage Books.
Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States:
History, research, and future directions (No. RP-1384).Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Education.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Hess, K. K., Jones, B. S., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. R. (2009). Cognitive rigor: Blending the
strengths of Bloom’s taxonomy and Webb’s depth of knowledge to enhance classroomlevel process. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Education
Assessment, Retrieved from ERIC Database (ED517804).
Hess, K. (2006). Exploring cognitive demand in instruction and assessment. National Center for
the Improvement of Educational Assessment: Dover, NH. Retrieved from http://www.
nciea. org/publications/DOK_ApplyingWebb_KH08. pdf.
Higgins, B., Miller, M., & Wegmann, S. (2006). Teaching to the test… not! Balancing best
practice and testing requirements in writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 310-319.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American
Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160-189.
Kagan, D. (1992). Implication of research on teacher beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 27(1),
65-91.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical pedagogy. New York: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Y.
Zou & E.T. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the
study of education (pp. 87-138). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Korthagen, F. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Toward a more holistic
approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Lauriala, A., & Kukkonen, M. (2005). Teacher and student identities as situated cognitions. In P.
Denicolo & M. Kompf (Eds.), Connecting policy and practice: Challenges for teaching
and learning in schools and universities (pp. 199-208). Oxford: Routledge.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 316.
Volume 1 Number 2
16
Spring 2016
Loewen, J. (2007) Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American History textbook got
wrong. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, M. S. E., Love, N. B., & Hewson, P. W.
(2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Manna, P., & Ryan, L. L. (2011). Competitive grants and educational federalism: President
Obama’s race to the top program in theory and practice. Publius: The Journal of
Federalism, 41(3), 522-546.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1998). The fall and rise of standards-based education. In R.
Meyers (Ed.), (pp. 57-80). U.S.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
Mathis, W. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Costs and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 679.
Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy,
curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research
Journal, 30(2), 521-546.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven
accountability for school improvement-and why we may retain it anyway. Educational
Researcher, 38(5), 353-364.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.
National Governors Association. (2009, July). Common Core State Standards development work
group and feedback group announced. Retrieved from
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/maincontent-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-group-and-feedbackgroup-announced.html.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
Newmann, F. M. (1990). Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for the
assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(1), 41-56.
O Connor, K. A., Heafner, T., & Groce, E. (2007). Advocating for social studies: Documenting
the decline and doing something about it. Social Education, 71(5), 255.
Onosko, J. J. (1991). Barriers to the promotion of higher-order thinking in social studies. Theory
& Research in Social Education, 19(4), 341-366.
Pace, J. (2012). Teaching literacy through social studies under No Child Left Behind. The
Journal of Social Studies Research, 36(4), 329-358
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test? Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16-21.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Volume 1 Number 2
17
Spring 2016
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T.
Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp.
102-119). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Ross, E. W., & Marker, P. M. (2005). (If social studies is wrong) I don't want to be right. Theory
& Research in Social Education, 33(1), 142-151.
Rudalevige, A. (2005, October). Adequacy, accountability, and the impact of “No Child Left
Behind.” Paper presented at Adequacy Lawsuits: Their Growing Impact on American
Education conference, Cambridge, MA. Abstract retrieved from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/events/Adequacy/PEPG-05-27rudalevige.pdf.
Salvucci, L. K. (1991). Mexico, Mexicans and Mexican Americans in secondary-school United
States history textbooks. History Teacher, 24(2)203-222.
Salpeter, J. (2003). 21st century skills: Will our students be prepared? Technology and LearningDayton, 24(3), 17-29.
Schneider, D., Adler, S. A., Beery, R., Ladson-Billings, G., Fernekes, W. R., Hartoonian, M.,
McFarland, M.A., … Tevis, C. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards
for the social studies. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.
Shanahan, C. (2009). What is disciplinary literacy? In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.),
Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 240-260). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it
matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L., Moore, C., Jackson, A., & Fry, P. (2004). Tensions in learning to
teach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 55(1), 8-24.
South Carolina Department of Education. (2011). Teacher’s guide: U.S. History and the
Constitution exam. Columbia, SC: Office of Assessment. Retrieved from
http://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/41/documents/USHCTeachersGuide2011.pdf.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2010). Beyond the rhetoric: Improving college readiness
through coherent state policy. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from
http://publications.sreb.org/2010/Beyond%20the%20Rhetoric.pdf.
Symcox, L. (2002). Whose history? The struggle for national standards in American classrooms.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Thornton, S. J. (1994). The social studies near century's end: Reconsidering patterns of
curriculum and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 20(1), 223-254.
Vinovskis, M. (2009). From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind: National education goals
and the creation of federal education policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Volante, L. (2004). Teaching to the test: What every educator and policy-maker should
know. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 35.
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2001). The role of text in classroom learning: Beginning an online
dialogue. Reading Online, 5(4). Retrieved from
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/wade/ind
ex.html
Volume 1 Number 2
18
Spring 2016
Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and
assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7-25.
Wiener, R. (2013). Teaching to the core: Integrating implementation of Common Core and
teacher effectiveness policies. The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2013/teachingtothecore.pdf
Wiener, R., & Hall, D. (2004). Accountability under No Child Left Behind. The Clearing House:
A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(1), 17-21.
Wyse, A. E., & Viger, S. G. (2011). How item writers understand depth of
knowledge. Educational Assessment, 16(4), 185-206.
Zhao, Y. (2009). Comments on the common core standards initiative. AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice, 6(3), 46-54.
Zinn, H. (2005). A people’s history of the United States: 1492 to present. New York, NY: Harper
Perennial Modern Classics.
Zygouris-Coe, V. (2012). Disciplinary literacy and the common core state standards. Topics in
Language Disorders, 32(1), 35-50.
Volume 1 Number 2
19
Spring 2016
Appendix A
2005 South Carolina Social Studies Standards
Social Studies Literacy Elements Chart
This chart indicates where a social studies literacy element should be introduced and mastered:
I—Introduce: the grade level at which the student explores this social studies literacy element. This
exploration may occur multiple times based on the content standards and grade appropriateness.
Continuous classroom assessment of a student’s progress is necessary at all identified grade levels.
D—Demonstrate: the grade level at which the student is expected to demonstrate this social studies
literacy element. These elements will also be incorporated into statewide assessments in grades three
through eight as appropriate. This demonstration is expected at all subsequent grades.
Literacy Element
A. Distinguish between past, present, and future
time
B. Establish chronological order in constructing
one’s own historical narratives
C. Measure and calculate calendar time
D. Create and interpret data on time lines
E. Explain change and continuity over time
F. Ask geographic questions: Where is it located?
Why is it there? What is significant about its
location? How is its location related to that of other
people, places, and environments?
G. Make and record observations about the physical
and human characteristics of places
H. Construct maps, graphs, tables, and diagrams to
display social studies information
I. Use maps to observe and interpret geographic
information and relationships
Volume 1 Number 2
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
H
S
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
D
I
D
D
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
20
Spring 2016
J. Demonstrate responsible citizenship within the
school community and the local and national
communities
K. Use texts, photographs, and documents to observe
and interpret social studies trends and relationships
I
Literacy Element
K
L. Interpret calendars, time lines, maps, charts, tables,
graphs, flow charts, diagrams, photographs, paintings,
cartoons, architectural drawings, documents, letters,
censuses, and other artifacts
M. Use tables and graphs to observe and interpret
geographic trends and relationships
N. Challenge ad hominem and other illogical arguments
(e.g., name calling, personal attacks, insinuation and
innuendo, circular arguments)
O. Consider multiple perspectives of documents and
stories
P. Locate, gather, and process information from a variety
of primary and secondary sources including maps
Q. Interpret information obtained from maps, aerial
photographs, satellite-produced images, and geographic
information systems
R. Use statistics and other quantitative techniques to
interpret and evaluate social studies information
S. Interpret and synthesize information obtained from a
variety of sources—graphs, charts, tables, diagrams,
texts, photographs, documents, and interviews
T. Plan and organize a geographic research project (e.g.,
specify a problem, pose a research question or
hypothesis, identify data sources)
U. Select and design appropriate forms of graphs,
diagrams, tables, and charts to organize social studies
information
V. Use a variety of media to develop and organize
integrated summaries of social studies information
W. Apply geographic models, generalizations, and
theories to the analysis, interpretation, and presentation
of geographic information
Volume 1 Number 2
21
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
H
S
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
D
D
D
D
I
I
D
D
D
D
I
D
D
D
I
D
D
D
I
D
D
D
I
I
D
I
I
D
I
I
D
I
I
D
Spring 2016
Appendix B
2011 South Carolina Social Studies Standards
Social Studies Literacy Skills for the Twenty-First Century)
The statements in the chart below represent a continuum of tools, strategies, and perspectives that are
necessary for the student's understanding of the social studies material taught at each of the four grade levels.
This chart contains statements that do not appear in the bulleted lists in the main text of this document.
Literacy Skills for Social Studies
Grades K–3
A*. Distinguish between
past, present, and future
time.
Grades 4–5
Establish the
chronological order in
reconstructing a historical
narrative.
Grades 6–8
Explain change and
continuity over time and
across cultures.
B. Measure and calculate
calendar time.
Create and interpret data
in time lines.
C. Identify cause-andeffect relationships.
Identify and explain
cause-and-effect
relationships.
D. Differentiate between
fiction and informational
text and between primary
and secondary sources.
Identify multiple points
of view or biases and ask
questions that clarify
those opinions.
E. Explain the difference
between fact and opinion.
Explain the difference
between fact and opinion,
evidence and argument.
Utilize different types of
media to synthesize
social studies information
from a variety of social
studies resources.
Interpret parallel time
lines from different
places and cultures.
Identify and explain the
relationships among
multiple causes and
multiple effects.
Evaluate multiple points
of view or biases and
attribute the perspectives
to the influences of
individual experiences,
societal values, and
cultural traditions.
Analyze evidence,
arguments, claims, and
beliefs.
Select or design
appropriate forms of
social studies resources
to organize and evaluate
social studies
information.
F. Interpret information
from a variety of social
studies resources.
Volume 1 Number 2
22
High School
Examine the relationship
of the present to the past
and use a knowledge of
the past to make
informed decisions in the
present and to extrapolate
into the future.
Trace and describe
continuity and change
across cultures.
Assess the relationships
among multiple causes
and multiple effects.
Evaluate the validity of
multiple points of view or
biases by using evidence
and sound reasoning.
Analyze and evaluate
evidence, arguments,
claims, and beliefs.
Analyze, interpret, and
synthesize social studies
information to make
inferences and draw
conclusions.
Spring 2016
Grades K–3
G. Recognize maps,
mental maps, and
geographic models as
representations of spatial
relationships.
Grades 4–5
Create maps, mental
maps, and geographic
models to represent
spatial relationships.
Grades 6–8
Interpret Earth’s physical
and human systems by
using maps, mental
maps, geographic
models, and other social
studies resources.
H. Find and describe the
locations and conditions
of places.
Identify the locations of
places, the conditions at
places, and the
connections between
places.
Compare the locations of
places, the conditions at
places, and the
connections between
places.
I. Identify his or her
place in the family,
school, and community.
Explain his or her
relationship to others in
American society and
culture.
Explain his or her
relationship to others in
the global community.
J. Practice responsible
citizenship within his or
her school, community,
and state.
Demonstrate responsible
citizenship within local,
state, and national
communities.
K. Identify political,
social, and economic
institutions that affect the
student, the school, and
the community.
Explain how political,
institutions have
influenced the state and
nation throughout
history.
Explain the opportunity
cost involved in the
allocation of scarce
productive resources.
Understand responsible
citizenship in relation to
the state, national, and
international
communities.
Explain how political,
institutions are similar or
different across time
and/or throughout the
world.
Explain how the
endowment and
development of
productive resources
affects economic
decisions and global
interactions.
L. Distinguish between
wants and needs and
between consumers and
producers.
Volume 1 Number 2
23
High School
Represent and interpret
Earth’s physical and
human systems by using
maps, mental maps,
geographic models, and
other social studies
resources to make
inferences and draw
conclusions.
Analyze and draw
conclusions about the
locations of places, the
conditions at places, and
the connections between
places.
Explain contemporary
patterns of human
behavior, culture, and
political and economic
systems.
Model informed
participatory citizenship.
Explain how groups
work to challenge
traditional institutions
and effect change to
promote the needs and
interests of society.
Compare the ways that
different economic
systems answer the
fundamental questions of
what goods and services
should be produced, how
they should be produced,
and who will consume
them.
Spring 2016
Grades K–3
M. Understand that
people make choices
based on the scarcity of
resources.
N. Explain the use of
barter and money in
exchange for goods and
services.
Grades 4–5
Illustrate the fact that
some choices provide
greater benefits than
others.
Explain how
specialization facilitates
trade.
Grades 6–8
Apply economic decision
making to understand
how limited resources
necessitate choices.
Explain why trade occurs
and how historical
patterns of trade have
contributed to global
interdependence.
O. Distinguish between
the public and private
sectors of the economy.
Identify connections
between government
policies, property rights,
and free enterprise.
P. Explain the importance
of the connection
between education and
success in life.
Explain the importance
of saving, investment,
and employment in
creating personal and
social wealth.
Explain the importance
of taxes in providing
public services to meet
the needs of the
individual and the
community.
Examine the costs and
the benefits of economic
choices made by a
particular society and
explain how those
choices affect overall
economic well-being.
Explain the use of a
budget in making
personal economic
decisions and planning
for the future.
Explain how
entrepreneurship and
economic risk-taking
promotes personal and
social economic
development in the past
and the present.
Q. Explain the
importance of jobs in the
fulfillment of personal
and social goals.
Volume 1 Number 2
24
High School
Analyze how a scarcity
of productive resources
affects economic choices.
Explain how an
interdependent,
specialized, and
voluntary worldwide
trade network affects a
nation’s standard of
living and economic
growth.
Explain how the United
States government
provides public services,
redistributes income,
regulates economic
activity, and promotes
economic growth.
Explain how investment
in human capital such as
health, education, and
training leads to
economic growth.
Analyze the role of the
government in promoting
entrepreneurial activity
Spring 2016
Grades K–3
R. Use a wide range of
idea-creation techniques.
Grades 4–5
Create new solutions to
problems.
S. Share thoughts and
ideas willingly.
Listen to and discuss the
ideas of others.
T. Work in teams to learn
collaboratively.
Demonstrate the ability
to work effectively and
respectfully with teams
of diverse individuals.
U. Generate writing that
expresses a main idea
and uses supporting
details to establish that
idea.
Generate writings that
express a main idea and
uses supporting details to
establish that idea for a
variety of audiences.
Grades 6–8
Elaborate and refine
ideas in order to improve
and maximize creative
efforts.
Articulate his or her own
thoughts and ideas and
those of others
objectively through
speaking and writing.
Demonstrate the ability
and willingness to make
compromises to
accomplish a common
team goal.
Create a thesis supported
by research to convince
an audience of its
validity.
High School
Analyze and evaluate
ideas in order to improve
and maximize creative
efforts.
Communicate effectively
in diverse environments
by using media and
technology.
Assume shared
responsibility for
collaborative work and
value the contributions
made by each team
member.
Create a research paper
with a thesis supported
by evidence and sound
arguments.
LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND OTHER TECHNICAL SUBJECTS
V. Ask and answer
Cite details from a text to Cite specific textual
Utilize contextual
questions to demonstrate support conclusions
evidence to support the
information to support
his or her understanding
made from that text.
analysis of primary and
the analysis of primary
of a text, using the text as
secondary sources.
and secondary sources.
the basis for the answers.
W. Use visual elements
Interpret visual
Integrate information
Synthesize ideas and data
as aids to understand
information to deepen his from a variety of media
to determine their
where, when, why, and
or her understanding.
sources with print or
validity and authenticity
how.
digital text in an
appropriate manner.
* Letters were added as a way to identify the standard in the narrative, they do not appear in the 2011
standards.
Example Literacy Skills Box Within the Main Body of the Standards: World Geography Standard 6 (WG6). (The list of resources included in this box is repeated whenever the words “social studies resources”
appears in a literacy box in any standard K-12).
Volume 1 Number 2
25
Spring 2016
•
•
•
•
Social Studies Literacy Skills for the Twenty-First Century
Trace and describe continuity and change across cultures.
Represent and interpret Earth’s physical and human systems by using maps, mental maps,
geographic models, and other social studies resources to make inferences and draw
conclusions.*
Analyze and draw conclusions about the locations of places, the conditions at places, and the
connections between places.
Explain contemporary patterns of human behavior, culture, and political and economic
systems.
* Social studies resources include the following: texts, calendars, timelines, maps, mental maps, charts, tables,
graphs, flow charts, diagrams, photographs, illustrations, paintings, cartoons, architectural drawings, documents,
letters, censuses, artifacts, models, geographic models, aerial photographs, satellite-produced images, and
geographic information systems.
Volume 1 Number 2
26
Spring 2016
Appendix C
Grades 9/10 CCSS for History/Social Studies Coding Instrument
Key Ideas & Details
Lesson Plan #
1.
2.
3.
Craft & Structure
4.
5.
6.
Integration of Knowledge & Ideas
7.
8.
9.
Key Ideas & Details
1.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of
primary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the
information.
2.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary
or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop
over the course of the text.
3.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.3 Analyze in detail a series of events described in a text;
determine whether earlier events caused later ones or simply preceded them.
Volume 1 Number 2
27
Spring 2016
Craft and Structure
4.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.4 Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are
used in a text, including vocabulary describing political, social, or economic aspects of
history/social science.
5.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.5 Analyze how a text uses structure to emphasize key
points or advance an explanation or analysis.
6.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.6 Compare the point of view of two or more authors for
how they treat the same or similar topics, including which details they include and
emphasize in their respective accounts.
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
7.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.7 Integrate quantitative or technical analysis (e.g., charts,
research data) with qualitative analysis in print or digital text.
8.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.8 Assess the extent to which the reasoning and evidence in
a text support the author’s claims.
9.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.9 Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in
several primary and secondary sources.
Volume 1 Number 2
28
Spring 2016
Roberts, S., & Crawford, P.
Appendix D:
Breakdown of the 75 Lesson Plans Analyzed
GRA 1 Lesson Plan Data Analysis
Lesson
Plan #
Key
Ideas &
Details 1
Key
Ideas &
Details 2
Key
Ideas &
Details 3
F1.1
1
1
F1.2
1
1
F1.3
1
1
F1.4
Craft &
Structure 4
Craft &
Structure 5
Craft &
Structure 6
Integration of
Knowledge &
Ideas 7
Integration of
Knowledge &
Ideas 8
Integration of
Knowledge &
Ideas 9
Total
2
1
1
F1.5
0
F2.1
1
F2.2
1
1
2
F2.3
1
1
2
F2.4
1
1
2
1
2
F2.5
0
F3.1
1
F3.2
F3.3
1
2
1
1
1
F3.4
1
2
1
1
F3.5
0
F4.1
1
F4.2
1
F4.3
1
1
1
1
1
F4.4
1
1
F4.5
1
1
Volume 1 Issue 2
1
3
1
2
2
1
F5.1
F5.2
4
3
0
1
1
2
29
Spring 2016
F5.3
0
F5.4
0
F5.5
0
F6.1
F6.2
1
2
F6.3
1
F6.5
1
F7.1
1
F7.2
1
4
1
1
F6.4
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
2
1
1
F7.3
1
1
2
F7.4
1
1
2
F7.5
1
1
2
M1.2
1
1
2
M1.3
1
1
2
M1.5
1
M2.1
1
M2.2
1
M2.3
1
M2.4
1
M2.5
M3.1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
M3.3
1
1
1
1
M4.2
1
M4.3
1
M4.4
1
Volume 1 Issue 2
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
M3.5
M4.1
2
1
M3.2
M3.4
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
30
Spring 2016
M4.5
M5.1
1
1
1
1
2
M5.2
0
M5.3
0
M5.4
0
M5.5
0
M6.1
M6.2
1
2
M6.3
1
M6.5
1
M7.1
1
M7.2
1
4
1
1
M6.4
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
2
1
1
M7.3
1
1
2
M7.4
1
1
2
M7.5
1
1
2
M8.1
1
1
1
M8.2
1
M8.3
1
M8.5
1
M9.1
1
1
M9.2
1
1
M9.3
Sum
3
1
1
Volume 1 Issue 2
40
2
1
3
1
1
37
1
3
1
25
6
2
4
13
31
4
3
4
Spring 2016
GRA 2 Lesson Plan Data Analysis
Lesson
Plan #
Key
Ideas &
Details 1
Key
Ideas &
Details 2
F1.1
Key
Ideas &
Details 3
Craft &
Structure 4
Craft &
Structure 5
Craft &
Structure 6
Integration of
Knowledge &
Ideas 7
Integration of
Knowledge &
Ideas 8
Integration of
Knowledge &
Ideas 9
2
Total
2
F1.2
1
1
F1.3
1
1
F1.4
1
F1.5
F2.1
F2.2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
F2.5
1
F3.1
1
F3.2
F3.3
1
1
F2.3
F2.4
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
F3.4
1
2
1
1
F3.5
F4.1
1
F4.2
1
F4.3
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
F4.4
1
1
F4.5
1
1
F5.1
1
1
F5.3
1
2
2
1
2
F5.2
3
3
2
1
1
2
1
3
F5.4
1
1
2
F5.5
1
1
2
F6.1
Volume 1 Issue 2
1
2
1
32
4
Spring 2016
F6.2
2
F6.3
F6.4
1
F6.5
1
F7.1
1
F7.2
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
4
1
2
1
F7.3
1
F7.4
1
3
1
1
2
F7.5
1
1
2
M1.2
1
1
M1.3
1
1
M1.5
M2.1
1
M2.2
1
M2.3
1
M2.4
1
M2.5
M3.1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
M3.2
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
M3.3
0
M3.4
1
1
2
M3.5
1
1
2
1
1
2
M4.1
M4.2
1
1
M4.3
1
1
M4.4
1
1
M4.5
1
1
M5.1
M5.2
1
2
M5.3
Volume 1 Issue 2
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
5
2
33
Spring 2016
M5.4
1
1
2
M5.5
2
2
4
M6.1
1
1
1
M6.2
1
1
1
1
4
M6.3
1
1
1
1
4
M6.4
1
1
M6.5
2
1
3
M7.1
1
1
2
M7.2
3
1
1
M7.3
1
1
1
M7.4
1
1
1
M8.2
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
M8.3
1
M8.5
2
2
M9.1
1
2
M9.2
1
2
M9.3
1
1
Sum
53
60
Volume 1 Issue 2
6
2
M7.5
M8.1
3
1
4
1
4
3
1
24
10
3
0
17
34
5
0
5
Spring 2016
Maxwell, M. B., Schrodt, K. E., & Hasty, M. M.
The Effects of Literacy Professional Development
Melanie Brandon Maxwell
Lipscomb University
Katie Edwards Schrodt
New Hope Academy
Michelle Medlin Hasty
Lipscomb University
This mixed methods study employed an intervention supported by qualitative analysis in the area
of professional development with elementary teachers. The qualitative question was: How do
teachers’ attitudes of balanced literacy qualitatively change across a yearlong professional
development program? The quantitative question was: How does teacher’s knowledge of
balanced literacy change across a yearlong professional development program? In the study, preand post-tests were given and scored with a researcher-created rubric. Qualitative data of
interviews were collected at various times across the study. The study was comprised of a sample
of 17 participants including teachers, one administrator, and two literacy coaches. The study took
place over one entire school year. Results of the study indicated that with professional
development based on teacher’s prior knowledge was successful. Findings also demonstrated that
teachers became more intentional educators as a result of the intervention
Keywords: literacy, continuing education, elementary education, professional
development
Introduction
The very purpose of professional development is to train professionals to become the
most effective teachers they can be in order to help impact student achievement and growth. For
decades in the United States, school districts have attempted to improve teacher effectiveness by
using professional development. As early as the 19th century, the Teacher Institutes began
initiatives around staff development (Richey, 1957), and even today, quality professional
development is considered critical for improving educational practices (Guskey, 2012).
Professional Development Defined
Professional development can be defined as ongoing learning opportunities that are
available to teachers through their school or school district (National Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future, 1996). The U.S. Department of Education (1996) described professional
development as opportunities to support and train teachers by providing them with necessary
skills that support students in reading at their highest potential. According to Guskey (2002),
Volume 1 Number 2
35
Spring 2016
professional development programs are “systematic efforts to bring about change in the
classroom practices of teachers, in their attitudes and beliefs, and in the learning outcomes of
students” (p. 381). In fact, high quality professional development continues to be the driving
force of every school improvement proposal written by school districts as many recognize that
schools are no better than the teachers they employ (Guskey, 2002). Although professional
development is widely viewed as important, many programs have been proven ineffective due to
a lack of motivation among teachers to engage in professional development activities as well as
ineffective implementation of the processes by which change occurs (Guskey, 2002). So, the
question remains: If professional development is necessary, but frequently ineffective, what can
be done to improve the knowledge of teachers? One answer comes from listening to the voices of
teachers.
Teachers believe becoming a better teacher means enhancing student learning (Guskey,
2002). They often attribute their own successes to positive student behaviors and activities,
rather than their own (Harootunian & Yargar, 1980). Thus, what attracts teachers to professional
development opportunities is a belief that the learning will benefit their students by expanding
their knowledge and subject matter and promoting student achievement. Teachers also reported
attending professional development to gain practical and specific ideas that could be used
immediately in their classrooms (Guskey, 2002).
In addition to teachers seeking out professional development, state and local leaders have
historically focused on initiatives to improve reading scores in schools. Professional
development has been seen as a means to educate teachers about a specific topic in order to
develop their understandings and abilities to teach. Once pre-service teachers graduate, school
districts are doing very little to ensure that teachers are well equipped to understand and
implement their current knowledge as well as new initiatives that are presented to them (Fisher,
Frey, & Nelson, 2015). Educators have sought direction in raising student achievement and
realized there is no single answer to reaching this goal. Many factors influence how students
perform in schools. Outside factors include poverty level, health, and educational levels of
parents. However, factors that can be controlled include curricular materials, instructional
materials, and teacher expertise (Fisher et al., 2015). The current focus on accountability and test
scores leaves educators no choice but to make sure teachers are current on best practices in
education and have sound knowledge in the area of reading instruction.
Although the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading exam scores for
eighth graders were two points higher in 2013 than in 2011, the score for fourth graders did not
show significant change from 2011. According to the National Diploma Project, “of the 70% of
high school graduates who enter college, 28% of those take remedial English or math courses”
(Achieve, Inc., 2004). It is clear from these data, that reading achievement is significant and
valuable for students to be successful throughout their educational journey. There is no other
way to ensure students will leave schools prepared to meet the demands of college than to equip
elementary teachers with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively teach reading. Bond
and Dykstra (1967) found that in order to “improve reading instruction it is necessary to train
better teachers of reading rather than to expect a panacea in the form of methods and materials”
(p.416). Often, in the educational world, teachers are trained with a half day or one day session
that focuses on broad topics with little or no follow-up. Teachers are then expected to implement
Volume 1 Number 2
36
Spring 2016
the idea or strategy learned with expertise and fidelity. This study sought to find a way to
improve professional development so that teachers and researchers alike could confidently
implement necessary change in education.
Literature Review
The following review of literature was conducted for two reasons: (1) to determine if
teachers benefit from embedded professional development and coaching, and (2) to better
understand what has been done in the field of professional development, specifically in the area
of literacy instruction. Professional development is defined by Shulman (1986) as serving the
purpose of improving teachers’ understanding of effective instruction in their content area.
Selection Criteria and Literature Search Procedures
Literature was selected based on the following criteria to ensure quality work: (1) all
articles were from peer-reviewed, published journals; (2) all studies used some type of
professional development to train teachers in their specific content area; and (3) all study
participants were early childhood and elementary educators.
Studies were found by conducting computer searches of ERIC, PsychINFO, and Google
Scholar databases. Search terms included professional development, academic achievement,
literacy, coaching, and elementary.
Participants Background in Literacy
The studies reviewed involved participants selected on a volunteer basis. Many were then
randomized to place teachers into groups receiving different types of professional development
and coaching models. However, none of the studies considered the background knowledge of
teachers regarding literacy instruction. All of the studies in this review simply implemented an
intervention model for professional development with participants with no attention given to
previous knowledge or needs for literary instruction. Porche, Pallante, and Snow (2012) used a
model for professional development: Collaborative Language and Literacy Instruction Project
(CLLIP) which is designed to incorporate best practices in literacy with support from follow-up
coaching. Carlisle and Berebitsky (2010) conducted a study that uses Language Essentials for
Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) training developed by Moats. Dunst and Raab
(2010) compared delivery methods of professional development including conference
presentations, workshops models, and intensive training. However, there was still no
consideration given to the knowledge level of participating teachers irrespective of intervention
type.
Type of Professional Development and Coaching
A study of a teacher’s ability to learn and expand on practices in literacy instruction
requires professional development to be tailored to meet the ongoing needs of participants and
embedded in the school community. In addition, coaching needs to be tailored to each individual
teacher’s understandings and needs based on new learning experiences. Addressing the training
needs of teachers would require significantly more attention than any of the studies in this review
Volume 1 Number 2
37
Spring 2016
provided. All of the studies in this review simply took a program or literacy approach and taught
it to teachers in different formats and based on varying follow-up methods.
None of the studies provided professional development that was tailored to meet the
needs of teachers and schools in the study, nor did they have embedded on-site support for
teachers. Carlisle and Berebitsky (2010) noted how teachers performed with coaches vs. no
coaches, but these visits were short. Additionally, coaches were not on-site and able to provide
immediate feedback and support, nor were they the same individual who provided the initial
professional development.
Teacher Attitudes and Learning
Of the studies in this review, two considered how teachers felt about the professional
development they were receiving. Porche, Pollante, and Snow (n.d.) required participants to rate
their satisfaction on a Likert scale after each training session. Although this particular study
spanned two years, no attention was given to participant feedback in year two. Dunst and Raab
(2010) also asked teachers to evaluate the usefulness of training using a Likert scale format.
The social constructivist theory developed by Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that learning
should begin in the social world. Vygotsky’s theory was grounded in the belief that multiple
interactions and opportunities to engage in activities just beyond what individuals are capable of
doing independently would result in independent success for these individuals at a later time.
This theory reflecting teacher-coach interaction through professional development is described in
Clay and Cazden (1990) further described this constructivist view as related to professional
development. In this study, adults were directly involved in learning new skills with support
from skilled and knowledgeable professionals. The new skills learned were taught using
scaffolding which links directly to the work of Vygotsky.
Another theory that supports professional development models is the situated learning
theory. Lave and Wenger (1991) argued that learning is not situated in acquisition but in
opportunities for learners to participate in real performances. The authors further explained
learning as a social activity and suggested that adults should have opportunities to practice what
they learned. This is type of learning is akin to the apprenticeship model in colonial America.
Amendum (2014) described situated learning theory as learning embedded in activities and
situations rather than the transfer of knowledge from one person to another. This transfer of
knowledge is similar to many current professional development practices for teachers. For the
authors of this current article, one question remains: What would learning be like for teachers if
they were assigned to an apprenticeship to learn a specific content area such as literacy? We
suggest that this learning arrangement would serve as a place in which individuals could learn
from a master teacher who had knowledge and skill in teaching children to read; it would
replicate a model of learning that has been successful since colonial times.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of literacy professional
development on teacher attitudes and knowledge of the reading components of balanced literacy.
This study is important because it used pre-test data to specifically determine the components of
literacy that were taught based on a teacher’s pre-existing knowledge about balanced literacy as
Volume 1 Number 2
38
Spring 2016
well as areas that could be strengthened. Data from teacher interviews were used to guide the
next steps in the learning process for teachers. This model was grounded in Vygotskey’s zone of
proximal development (ZPD). Teachers were taught based on what they currently knew, what
they could do with help and support as a teacher, and with some training and coaching, what they
would be able to later take ownership of in their own practice.
Research Design
This study used a convergent parallel mixed methods design (Creswell, 2011).
Qualitative and quantitative data were collected in parallel and analyzed separately. Once data
were analyzed, findings were merged for an overarching interpretation (Creswell, 2011). This
mixed methods study addressed one qualitative question and one quantitative question. The
qualitative question was: How do teachers’ attitudes of balanced literacy qualitatively change
across a yearlong professional development. The quantitative question was: How does teacher
knowledge of balanced literacy change across a yearlong professional development. In this
study, a pre- and post-test were given and scored with a researcher-created rubric. Qualitative
data of interviews were collected at various times across the study.
Participants
This study was conducted at a small, private elementary school in the mid-south.
Lonestar Academy (pseudonym) serves approximately 335 students in pre-kindergarten through
4th grade within middle to upper class socioeconomic status. All teachers at Lonestar Academy
were required to attend the professional development associated with the study. Teachers were
given an option to participate in the literacy assessment and interview portions. There were 17
participants comprised of teachers, two administrators, and two literacy coaches.
Procedures
Teachers were given a pre-test developed by the researcher about components of
balanced literacy in reading. Results from this test along with input from the principal and
literacy leaders in the building were used to develop the first series of professional development
sessions for teachers. The remaining professional development sessions were determined by a
combination of the pre-test data, principal and literacy leader input, and information gathered
through interviews with teachers.
Professional development sessions were different for every grade level. Teachers were
provided professional development half day sessions with follow-up coaching around specific
topics. Topics included interactive read-aloud, shared reading, guided reading, running records,
reader’s workshop, word study/spelling, and literacy centers. All professional development
sessions followed the model of looking at research and experts in the field around a topic,
looking at what the practice looks like with children in classrooms and a structure and developed
plan for how the teacher would begin implementing the component into the classroom. Teachers
were taught specific strategies for using the components of literacy taught in the professional
development. In addition to professional development, teachers were provided opportunities to
participate in modeled lessons in their classrooms and follow-up coaching from the researcher.
Volume 1 Number 2
39
Spring 2016
Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis
The quantitative portion of this mixed methods study was a pre- and post-test design. The
quantitative data source was a researcher-created assessment. This short-answer assessment
addressed reading-based balanced literacy topics; it was designed to assess balanced literacy
knowledge of participants. The assessment included the following topics: balanced literacy
framework; gradual release model; guided reading, read-aloud; shared reading; and overall
literacy knowledge around the five components of literacy (phonics, phonemic awareness,
vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency). This assessment was graded using a researchercreated rubric. The first author and an assistant researcher scored the tests. This measure was
checked for inter-rater reliability by the re-scoring of 25% of each test by a third scorer.
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
Qualitative data for this mixed-methods study were collected throughout the professional
development experience. Interviews were conducted prior to the professional development, after
the professional development, and throughout the school year. Interviews were conducted in
small groups of two or three teachers. The first author conducted the interviews and transcribed
participant responses. Data were analyzed using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Quantitative Results
Quantitative data collection came from a researcher-created instrument. The researcher
and assistant researcher scored each test. Inter-rater reliability was computed by re-scoring 25%
of each test by a third scorer. Results from pre- and post-test data can be seen in Table 1 and
Table 2. We are 95% confident that the population mean difference based on the use of the
intervention will be found in the interval (7.03, 3.20) for reported literacy pre-test scores (M =
10.06, SD – 5.13) and literacy post-test scores (M = 15.18, SD = 3.93, n = 17). The dependent
samples t test (α = .05) indicated that the literacy test scores differed before the intervention, pretest (M = 10.06, SD = 5.13, n = 17) and after the intervention, post-test (M = 15.18, SD = 3.93, n
= 17), t (16) = -5.67, p < .001. Post-test scores were higher than pre-test scores, indicating that
teachers gained balanced literacy knowledge after the professional development activity.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Literacy Test Scores
Literacy Test
n
Mean
Pre-test
17
10.06
Post-test
17
15.18
Volume 1 Number 2
40
SD
5.13
3.93
Spring 2016
Table 2
Paired T-test for Literacy Test Scores
Literacy Test
n
Mean
Pre-test
17
10.06
Post-test
17
15.18
*significant at the .05 level
df
16
t
+5.67
P
<.001*
Qualitative Results
Qualitative data were collected throughout the school year through teacher interviews and
reflection logs. Teachers who completed the pre- and post-tests answered reflection questions.
Teachers were also given opportunities throughout the study to provide feedback in a narrative
format. Table 3 shows the results of grounded theory analysis of pre-test and pre-professional
development interview data. From these interviews, responses fell into three broad categories
based on teachers’ expressed needs for support to improve literacy instruction: time
management, comprehension strategies, and guided reading.
Table 3
Pre-test Reflection and Interview
Theme
Definition of Theme
Time Management
Teachers needed more
support with how to fit all
the components of Balanced
Literacy
Comprehension Strategies
Teachers stated their
biggest area of need
understands what the
comprehension strategies
are and how to teach them.
Guided Reading
Teachers asked for more
support with Guided
Reading.
Data Exemplar
“I cannot figure out how to
fit all of the components of
Balanced Literacy in every
day.”
“I don’t know what
strategies to use to help my
students understand what
they read.”
“I need help with how to
implement guided reading.”
Post-test reflection questions were collected as the final piece of data collection. Results
of grounded theory analysis can be found in Tables 4 and 5. From these reflections the following
three themes emerged related to student learning: comprehension, accountable talk, and stamina
(time spent reading). Three themes emerged around teacher learning: intentional teaching,
intentional language, and intentional reflection around student learning. From post-test reflection
questions, three themes also emerged using grounded theory analysis related to teacher needs
after the year of professional development: scope and sequence and continued support and
professional development. Results can be found in Table 6.
Volume 1 Number 2
41
Spring 2016
Table 4
Post-test Reflection Data: Related to Student Learning
Theme
Definition of Theme
Comprehension
Students understanding
what they read.
Accountable Talk
Stamina/Time Spent
Reading
Students are naming
comprehension strategies in
conversations around text,
students refer back to the
text when they speak.
Students are reading more
and reading for longer
periods of time.
Table 5
Post-test Reflection Data: Related to Teacher Learning
Theme
Definition of Theme
Intentional Teaching
Teachers are more
intentional about teaching
strategies of comprehension
and standards around
reading.
Intentional Language
Teacher language around
reading is intention and
using the actual terms of
comprehension strategies.
Intentional Reflection
Teachers are looking at
around Student Learning
notes from student
conferences and
assessments to making
teaching decisions for
students.
Volume 1 Number 2
42
Data Exemplar
“My students are able to
comprehend what they are
reading.”
“My students are using the
language of comprehension
when they turn and talk to
others during the readaloud.”
“My students are reading
more than they ever have
before.”
Data Exemplar
“Reading strategies and
standards now drive my
instruction rather than the
basal reading series.”
“I use the language of
literacy when I teach
reading.”
“I know what kind of
readers and writers my
children are.’’
Spring 2016
Table 6
Teacher Needs
Theme
Scope and Sequence
Continued Support and
Professional Development
Definition of Theme
An outline of how to align
standards with the
components of balanced
literacy.
The need for more
professional development
and at a slower pace. The
need for professional
development to be taught in
the summer as opposed to
throughout the school year.
Data Exemplar
“I need a plan on making it
all fit with standards and the
balanced literacy
framework.”
“Give the training in
smaller chunks and not be
expected to implement as
we go.”
“We need more training
offered before the school
year begins.”
Discussion
The review of the literature indicated that teachers seek professional development to
enhance student learning. Much attention is given to professional development in schools, but
there was no evidence to show that teachers’ prior knowledge was assessed prior to professional
development in order to tailor learning experiences to meet teachers’ specific areas of need. This
mixed methods study addressed one quantitative and one qualitative question. The quantitative
question was: How does teachers’ knowledge of balanced literacy change across a yearlong
professional development? The qualitative question was: How do teacher’s attitudes of balanced
literacy qualitatively change across a yearlong professional development?
By considering these questions, we attempted to show the effectiveness of professional
development based on teachers’ prior knowledge through a researcher-created measure and
qualitative measures. The researcher-created pre- and post-test instrument helped identify areas
in which teachers had knowledge of components of balanced literacy and areas where
professional development efforts should be focused. By using these data and tailoring
professional development sessions to needs within grade level groups, teachers were able to
effectively learn these components of balanced literacy. This success can be seen in the
significant difference between pre- and post-test scores.
Teacher attitudes in pre-test data demonstrated that teachers saw a need for instruction on
comprehension strategies for themselves as educators. Based on these data, sessions were
provided specifically for comprehension strategy work in the genre of fiction and nonfiction.
Teachers were also provided professional development in read-aloud and guided reading with
embedded strategies for teaching comprehension through these components. In post-test
reflections, student learning emerged as a theme in terms of increased learning in the area of
comprehension strategies.
Reflections also revealed that teachers had moved away from thinking only about
components of balanced literacy to being intentional teachers of literacy. Themes emerged
Volume 1 Number 2
43
Spring 2016
around intentionality of language and teaching and reflection from the pre- to post-test reflection.
Prior to professional development, intentionality was not mentioned in any of the previously
collected data.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
Small sample size and coaching effects are limitations of the study. This study was a pilot
study that used pre- and post-test data to drive professional development in the area of balanced
literacy for teachers. The amount of coaching provided to teachers after a professional
development session varied among teachers. Future research would benefit from an experimental
design to determine if benefits are solely based on the professional development. Additionally,
future researchers are encouraged to be on-site to conduct follow-up coaching sessions with
teachers after every professional development session.
References
Amendum, S. (2014). Embedded professional development and classroom-based early reading
intervention: Early diagnostic reading intervention through coaching. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 30, 348-377.
American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that
counts. Washington, DC: Achive Inc. Retrieved from
www.achieve.org/files/ADPreport_7.pdf
Bond, G., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 348-427.
Carlisle, J., & Berebitsky, D. (2011). Literacy coaching as a component of professional
development. Reading and Writing, 773-800.
Dunst, C., & Trivette, C. (2009). Let's be PALS: An evidence-based approach to professional
development. Infants and Young Children, 164-176.
Dunst, C., & Raab, M. (2010). Practitioners' self-evaluations of contrasting types of professional
development. Journal of Early Intervention, 239-254.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Nelson, J. (n.d.). Literacy achievement through sustained professional
development. The Reading Teacher, 551-563.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine Pub.
Guskey, T. (n.d.). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice, 381-391.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Porche, M., Pallante, D., & Snow, C. (n.d.). Professional development for reading achievement.
The Elementary School Journal, 649-671.
Porche, M., Pallante, D., & Snow, C. (2012). Professional development for reading achievement.
The Elementary School Journal, 649-671.
Volume 1 Number 2
44
Spring 2016
Ritchey, H. (1957). Growth of modern conception in inservice education. In Inservice education.
Fifty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the study of education. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 4-4.
Vygotsky, L. S. (197 Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes 8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Published originally in Russian
in 1930
Volume 1 Number 2
45
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
Factors Contributing to the University/School Divide in Teacher Education: A
Systematic Literature Review
Jennifer Summerlin
University of Alabama at Birmingham
A growing emphasis on raising the quality of teachers exiting teacher education programs
continues to be the focus of educational stakeholders. Although teacher education programs
complete a rigorous review process to receive national accreditation, a novice teacher’s ability to
implement the best practices learned at the collegiate level within the early childhood/elementary
education classroom is often ineffective. This inability to implement previously learned researchbased best practices is a complex problem which is based on a number of factors. This literature
review sought to identify factors that contribute to the gap between theory and practice for novice
early childhood/elementary education teachers. Recent research in teacher education revealed
three emergent categories: factors contributing to the university/ school divide at the collegiate
level, factors contributing to the university/school divide at the school level, and contributing
factors at the teacher candidate level. Examination of current literature in teacher education
highlights the importance of innovative practices in schools of education and encourages a new
way of thinking about the teacher certification process.
Keywords: university/school divide, theory/practice gap, teacher education, rethinking
teacher education
Introduction
According to Darling-Hammond (2006), "Teachers in many communities need to work
as professors of disciplinary content, facilitators of individual learning, assessors and
diagnosticians, counselors, social workers, and community resource managers" (p. 4-5). This
quote powerfully explains the requirements of teachers currently working in classrooms across
our nation. As educators work to prepare global learners, they are challenged to have a deep
knowledge of content as well as the ability to support all types of learners in reaching the
ambitious standards required for students to compete in a global society (Izzo et al., 2015)
Decades of research have enumerated the importance of the classroom teacher
concerning student achievement (Ball, 1993; Begle, 1979; Bruner, 1960; Byrne, 1983; DarlingHammond, 2006; Dewey, 1916; Goddard, Hoy, W., & Hoy, A., 2000; Lortie, 1975; Meier, 2002;
Palardy & Rumberger, 2008; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Shulman, 1986, 2000; Sanders &
Horn, 1994; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011;Whitehead, 1929; ).
Researchers have studied the impact of effective teachers on student learning and concluded a
lower quality teacher can produce discrepancies in students' reading and mathematics
achievement scores by a minimum of 30 percentile point differences (Stronge et al., 2011).
Palardy and Rumberger (2008) posited that a string of ineffective teachers could result in an
enormous difference over a child's learning trajectory.
Despite research findings on teacher effectiveness and student achievement, there is
significant debate regarding how to successfully prepare teacher candidates and remediate
current educators. The recent emphasis on raising teacher quality has focused on improving
educators at the school level through professional development, professional learning
Volume 1 Number 2
46
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
communities, coaching, and countless other initiatives (Darling-Hammond, 2005, 2006; DarlingHammond, Wise, & Klein, 1999; Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). In addition to
the school level emphasis, schools of education are coming under scrutiny to provide rich
clinical experiences in conjunction with learning pedagogy, specifically methods for delivering
content to diverse learners (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Chard & Cibulka, 2013; Schmidt,
Cogan, & Houang, 2011; Segall, 2004; Zimpher & Howey, 2013).
In fact, research findings show a correlation between the quality of the teacher education
program and the novice teacher’s feelings of preparedness (Darling-Hammond, Chung, &
Frelow, 2002). According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2002), the lower the quality of teacher
education program, the higher the attrition rate among program graduates. In addition to a lack of
desire to remain in the teaching profession, these program graduates displayed greater classroom
difficulties and lower levels of student achievement. Therefore, this increased level of
accountability is long overdue in the field of education. However, it only addresses a small
portion of the larger problem in developing quality teachers across our nation.
One issue that remains underemphasized is the divide between the learning that occurs at
the university level, focused on scientifically research-based best practices, and a novice
teacher's practical application of knowledge within the classroom setting. Researchers refer to
this as the university/school divide or the theory-practice gap (Allsopp et al., 2006;
Anagnostopoulos et al., 2007; Roth, Mavin, & Dekker, 2014; Serebrin, 2004; Shapiro & Kilbey,
1990). Although novice teachers may be equipped with the best instructional practices, they may
not be fully prepared to face the multi-faceted and complex job we call teaching.
The purpose of this literature review is to explore the current research in teacher
education for determining the factors that contribute to the university/school divide. The first
section explains the methodology used for selection and evaluation of the studies included in this
literature review. Following the methodology section is an overview of these studies. Research
studies were divided into three emergent categories: collegiate level factors contributing to the
university/school divide, school level factors contributing to the university/school divide, and
contributing factors at the teacher candidate level. Within each category, recent studies featured
potential issues for consideration in understanding the complexity surrounding the theorypractice gap. The literature review concludes with future research implications to extend the
dialogue and provide insight into opportunities to deepen our understanding of quality
preparation for teacher candidates.
Methodology of Review
Multiple sources of information form the basis of this critical literature review, providing
a context for understanding previous studies, current studies, and gaps for future studies in
teacher education. The following databases were used for this literature review: Education Full
Text, ERIC, ProQuest, EBSCO, OCLC, Professional Development Collection, Academic One
File, JSTOR, and SAGE. Each database provided a wealth of peer-reviewed, scholarly articles
related to teacher education. Searches were limited to full text peer-reviewed journal articles,
dissertations, and conference papers from January 2010 through January 2015.
The search descriptor "pre-service teacher education," yielded 2,995 scholarly peerreviewed sources. Using "elementary education," and "early childhood education" as within
search descriptors, the total number of journal articles was decreased to a more manageable
Volume 1 Number 2
47
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
number of 984 peer-reviewed sources. Additional search descriptors included "constructivist
approach to elementary/early childhood teacher education," and "best practices in
elementary/early childhood teacher education." These search descriptors yielded 40 articles
related to a constructivist approach and 540 journal articles related to best practices in
elementary/early childhood teacher education. Further investigation of the recommended peerreviewed journal articles from each database provided the author an opportunity to choose
empirical studies that were most appropriate for this literature review.
Evaluation standards. Employing a variety of appropriate standards for evaluating the
quality of research studies was imperative for building a strong literature review. Creswell
(2012) provided specific standards for evaluating both qualitative and quantitative studies to
determine inclusion in the literature review. Standards for quantitative research focused on
validity, reliability, strength of the research design, and accuracy of data analysis results.
Standards for qualitative research focused on rigor of data collection, evidence of triangulation of
findings, clarity and consistency of data analysis, and inclusion of multiple perspectives.
Standards for mixed methods research focused on the integration of both quantitative and
qualitative methods for understanding the research problem more deeply (Creswell & Plano,
2011). Employing these recommended practices and criteria helped to establish a systematic
literature review.
Overview of Research Studies
This literature review includes a total of 27 research studies. Four of the 27 studies
employed a mixed-methods approach, using both qualitative and quantitative research structures.
Mixed-methods studies were composed of surveys and standardized performance assessments to
complete the quantitative research component. Interviews and lesson observations completed the
qualitative portion of the mixed-methods study (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Danyluk,
2012; Fantilli & McDougall, 2009; Hill et al., 2012). Fourteen studies reviewed were purely
quantitative, employing a survey or questionnaire to answer the previously identified research
questions (Bacharach et al., 2010; Brown, Lee, & Collins, 2015; Gareis & Grant, 2014;
Haviland, Turley, & Shin, 2011; Joshi et al., 2009; Joshi & Cantrell et al., 2013; Kee, 2012;
Knoblauch & Chase, 2015; National Research Council, 2010; Pendergrast, Garvis, & Keogh,
2011; Pogodzinski, 2013; Putnam, 2012; Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012; Sung, 2007; Washburn,).
Nine of the 27 studies employed a qualitative research design. These qualitative studies were
composed of participant interviews, lesson plan/document analysis, and classroom observations
(Cochran-Smith et al., 2012; Gordon, 2011; Green et al., 2009; Green et al., 2011; Rozelle &
Wilson, 2012; Summerlin, 2015; Superfine & Li, 2014; Trent, 2012; Woods et al., 2014).
All 27 of the studies reviewed focused on understanding potential factors contributing to
the university/school divide, an inability of novice teachers to carry over the previously learned
pedagogy from their teacher education programs into the early childhood/elementary classroom.
Participants varied across studies and included solely or a combination of the following: teacher
educators, cooperating teachers, student interns, and novice early childhood/elementary
generalists.
Nine of the 27 studies focused exclusively on perceptions of teacher candidates (Brown
et al., 2015; Cochran-Smith et al., 2012; Knoblauch & Chase, 2015; Green et al., 2011;
Volume 1 Number 2
48
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
Pendergast et al., 2011; Putnam, 2012; Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012; Sung, 2007; Woods et al.,
2014; ). Five studies included recent graduates from teacher education programs or a
combination of recent graduates and teacher candidates from one school of education (Fantilli &
McDougall, 2009; Gordon, 2011; Hill et al., 2012; Kee, 2012; Summerlin, 2015).
Findings of the Review
There are multiple factors surrounding the issue of the university/school divide.
Contributing factors can be found at the university, school, and teacher candidate levels. If a
teacher education program lacks knowledgeable instructors or is not rigorous in requirements for
teacher certification, then teacher candidates graduating from these programs are potentially
unprepared to handle the multifaceted requirements of today’s early childhood/elementary
education generalist. Along with issues at the collegiate level, contributing factors can also be
found at the school level. A poorly matched cooperating teacher or field placement may not
provide the model of instruction required for the teacher candidate to gain the experience
necessary to successfully implement instructional techniques learned in the teacher education
program. Issues can also be found at the teacher candidate level. For example, the teacher
candidate may lack the necessary skills for managing students in order to effectively deliver
lessons or content. The current research on teacher education identifies factors contributing to the
university/school divide at all three levels. Although this is not an exhaustive list of factors
impeding novice teachers in implementing the best practices learned in their teacher education
program, these three subcategories represent the current research on issues facing teacher
educators along the teaching continuum.
Factors at the collegiate level. Factors identified at the collegiate level related to the
knowledge of the course instructor, inconsistencies between instructors within the teacher
education program, and the difficult transition for classroom teachers out of the elementary
classroom into the university setting. The first factor at the collegiate level is the knowledge level
of the course instructor. Joshi et al. (2009) and Washburn et al. (2011) completed two studies
comparing the knowledge level of teacher candidates and in-service teachers to the knowledge
level of the university course instructor. Findings from both studies revealed university
instructors’ performance on knowledge-based and ability-based items mirrored the findings of
the teacher candidates and in-service teachers currently and previously enrolled in courses taught
by these instructors (Joshi et al., 2009; Washburn et al., 2011). These researchers confirmed the
importance of knowledgeable teacher educators in bridging the theory/practice gap.
The second factor identified at the college level was the lack of consistent language and
understanding regarding how teacher educators draw upon a combination of content knowledge
and pedagogical knowledge to develop elementary educators. Superfine and Li (2014) explored
the inconsistent understandings and language espoused by teacher educators within one school of
education teacher preparation program. The lack of common language in teacher education
perpetuates the inability of teacher educators to promote systematic learning among teacher
candidates and across all program areas. This inconsistent use of language fuels misconceptions
among already fragile learners who are working to understand and apply complex pedagogical
concepts in the early childhood/elementary education classroom.
Volume 1 Number 2
49
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
A third factor contributing to the university/school divide is the inability of teacher
educators to support teacher candidates with constructing understanding of the complex
requirements involved in being an early childhood/elementary education generalist. The
university setting is far removed from the day-to-day work of classroom teachers. Several current
researchers have explored alternative venues for recreating the classroom experience in hopes of
better preparing teacher candidates for the unique expectations associated with teaching. For
example, Summerlin (2015) explored the benefits of placing teacher candidates who had
completed their required methods courses and were entering the final internship, into a half-day,
summer enrichment program in an urban school setting. Teacher candidates were required to
create the learning environment, daily schedule, and daily curriculum. Additionally, teacher
candidates were charged with establishing a classroom community and completing individual
student assessments in literacy and numeracy at the onset and close of the program. This
mutually beneficial partnership yielded practical benefits for teacher candidates and academic
benefits for the children who attended. Other researchers have worked to establish innovative
experiences for teacher candidates, but these efforts frequently require strong school
partnerships, funding, additional faculty and staff, and a commitment on the part of university
instructors to provide more innovative options for candidates in teacher education programs
(Gordon, 2011; Green et al., 2011).
Finally, the tension and difficulties experienced by beginning teacher educators as they
transition from the school setting to becoming teacher educators may also contribute to the
university/school divide. Trent (2012) identified multiple issues facing novice teacher educators
through a qualitative case study. Transitioning from the early childhood/elementary classroom to
the university setting is challenging. Trent (2012) uncovered challenges such as conflicting
values, professional identity survival, and mixed emotions in addition to the benefits of
becoming a teacher educator. Each of these challenges could become obstacles for novice
teacher educators as they work to provide quality field experiences for students enrolled in their
courses.
Each of these highlighted studies provides a glimpse of contributing factors at the
collegiate level to the university/school divide. Additional collegiate level factors involve (a)
concerns about placement of teacher education programs at a graduate level rather than an
undergraduate level (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1989; Glazerman et al., 2010; Haviland et
al., 2011), (b) pressures to consider alternative pathways for teacher certification (Unruh & Holt,
2010), and (c) increasing demands to adopt evidence-based practices in combination with
standardized assessment measures while simultaneously facing decreased amounts of academic
autonomy and freedom for making faculty-based curricular decisions (Haviland et al., 2011; Hill
et al., 2012; Wood, 2004). Each of these factors adds an extra layer to the complex problem of
closing the university/school divide.
Factors at the school level. There are a number of potential factors at the school level
that may contribute to the university/school divide. The first factor at the school level is the
influence of the cooperating teacher’s beliefs and practices on a teacher candidate’s beliefs and
practices. Rozelle and Wilson (2012) examined the influence of the cooperating teacher on
shaping the instructional practices of teacher candidates during and after the teaching internship.
This study documented two distinct phases the teacher candidate progresses through while
Volume 1 Number 2
50
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
completing the teaching internship. The first phase involved the teacher candidate reproducing
the lessons observed from the cooperating teacher; the second phase involved the teacher
candidate’s evolution toward adopting the cooperating teacher’s philosophical beliefs about
teaching and learning.
For example, student interns moved from phase one, reproducing the exact words,
thoughts, and instructional practices of the cooperating teacher to phase two, abandoning their
own beliefs about teaching and learning for the more traditional beliefs of the cooperating
teacher. These researchers identified the importance of knowledgeable, philosophically-aligned
cooperating teachers in bridging the theory/practice gap. In addition to common philosophical
beliefs, advocating for a co-teaching model in which teacher candidates work alongside of the
cooperating teacher to plan, design, implement, and evaluate lessons within the early
childhood/elementary classroom would provide a powerful model and send teacher candidates a
message of collegiality rather than one of imitation (Bacharach et al., 2010).
The second factor identified at the school level was the lack of cooperating teacher voices
in developing programs at the university level. There was also a lack of preparation or training
for cooperating teachers to effectively support teacher candidates within the classroom setting.
Danyluk (2012) explored the value of incorporating what current classroom teachers see as
issues in preparedness of early childhood/elementary education candidates within the design of
the teacher education program. Based on surveys of 52 cooperating teachers, Danyluk (2012)
found that cooperating teachers identified adequate levels of lesson planning and material
selection by teacher candidates but less than adequate preparation in the area of classroom
management. Research participants also identified the inability of teacher candidates to address
individual differences found within a classroom of elementary children.
Meeting the individual needs of students in the early childhood/ elementary education
classroom, while also maintaining the needs of the larger group is a complex task. Lidstone and
Hollingsworth (1992) identified three stages of cognitive attention within the first four years of
teaching: management focused, pedagogy focused, and student learning focused. Although
novice teachers in this longitudinal study had the knowledge required to differentiate instruction,
their ability to apply this knowledge took years to fully develop. Regardless, a balanced approach
is called for to incorporate the classroom teacher’s voice. Cooperating teachers exhibit a strong
influence on teacher candidates, and this lack of input into the university level teacher education
program could contribute to the theory/practice gap (Rozelle & Wilson, 2012).
Gareis and Grant (2014) explored the influence of providing clinical training for
cooperating teachers to activel support teacher candidates during the teaching internship. These
researchers revealed an increased level of self-efficacy for cooperating teachers as they learned
how to support teacher candidates by building a professional relationship and incorporating
effective techniques for clinical supervision. Teacher candidates working with trained
cooperating teachers received more accurate final evaluations than did candidates working with
untrained cooperating teachers. Although the benefits of training cooperating teachers are
evident, most universities have little control over classroom placements or additional training to
effectively support teacher candidates (Bacharach et al., 2010; Greenberg, Pomerance, & Walsh,
2011).
Prior to implementing training for cooperating teachers, creation of consistent standards
for choosing classroom teachers who are knowledgeable in content areas, exhibit high levels of
Volume 1 Number 2
51
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
teaching-efficacy, and maintain consistent levels of student achievement while understanding
developmentally appropriate classroom practices would support teacher candidates. Effective
classroom teachers would build a foundation for teacher candidates on their journey towards
teaching excellence (Cantrell et al., 2013). Choosing effective classroom teachers and providing
training to proactively support and mentor beginning educators is pertinent to producing
effective teacher educators.
Finally, one potential school level factor contributing to the university/school divide is
the influence of school climate on efficacy and effectiveness of teacher candidates. Knoblauch
and Chase (2015) investigated the effects of a rural, suburban, or urban placement on teacher
candidates’ self-efficacy and the perceived causes of student misbehavior, in explaining
academic and behavioral issues among students. The researchers posited that additional
challenges faced by teacher candidates in an urban school setting may have influenced the level
of teacher candidates’ teaching efficacy as well as perceived causes of student misbehavior or
academic inconsistencies. Knoblauch and Chase further observed that teacher candidates in rural,
urban, and suburban settings often blamed the student for behavior issues and academic failures.
The teacher candidates took no ownership for their role in the student’s lack of success. Rather
than examining and reflecting on how their instructional decisions, ability to foster a classroom
community, or potential extenuating circumstances in the student’s life, the teacher candidates
attributed the failure to the student’s lack of motivation, low intelligence, lack of familial
support, or a lack of commitment. According to Gareis and Grant (2014), if teacher candidates
adopted the beliefs and behaviors of the classroom teacher then student blame exhibited by
teacher candidates may be directly related to modeling by the classroom teacher.
Each study highlighted provides an understanding of potential factors contributing to the
theory-practice gap at the school level. Other school level factors contributing to novice teacher
inability to transfer theory into practical classroom included a lack of support once teacher
candidates exited the university teacher education program and entered their first year of
teaching (Cochran-Smith et al., 2012). Key indicators of successful teaching included the quality
of mentor support for beginning teachers (Glazerman et al., 2010; Ingersoll & Stronge, 2011;
Pogodzinski, 2013; Strong, 2009) and the quality of administrative support provided to novice
teachers in their first year of teaching (Fantilli & McDougall, 2009). Additional factors that
contributed to the university-school divide among novice early childhood/elementary education
teachers included the school climate (Meristo & Eisenschmidt, 2014), lack of pay incentives
(Liu, Johnson, & Peske, 2004), and the ever-increasing national demands to adopt prescriptive
teaching frameworks (Wood, 2004).
Factors at the candidate level. There are a number of factors for consideration at the
teacher candidate level which contribute to the university/school divide. The first factor is the
inability to accurately appraise and self-evaluate performance by teacher candidates. Washburn
et al. (2011) examined the knowledge level of teacher candidates as related to actual
performance, specifically in terms of supporting struggling readers. The perceived ability of
candidates was much higher than the candidate’s actual knowledge level. This discrepancy may
result in a teacher’s inability to ask for assistance to support a struggling reader within the
classroom setting.
Volume 1 Number 2
52
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
Putnam (2012) examined the varying levels of self-efficacy among teacher candidates
and in-service teachers with differing years of teaching experience. Prior to the teaching
internship, pre-service teachers exhibited the highest levels of teaching efficacy but decreased
confidence was experienced once pre-service teachers begin teaching. Putman (2012) advocated
for providing opportunities for pre-service teacher candidates to engage in authentic experiences
that allowed for as many authentic teaching opportunities as possible to manage the varied
aspects involved in teaching. Researchers demonstrated the importance of a teacher’s efficacy in
promoting academic achievement, increasing student motivation, and exhibiting persistence in
reaching resistant students (Brown et al., 2015; Cantrell et al., 2013; Pendergast et al., 2011;
Pogodzinski, 2013; Yilmaz, 2011).
Another factor at the candidate level was the inability of the candidate to integrate the
vast and differing messages received throughout one teacher education program with the
complexity of constructing a personal identity. Cook et al., (2002) affirmed this factor through a
qualitative case study following one teacher candidate’s transition from the university into a fulltime early childhood teaching position. Results from this case study indicated pre-service
teachers begin as one type of practitioner but once their initial beliefs dissolve, the teacher
candidate moves further away from the original vision of teaching constructed at the university’s
teacher education program. With 50 pre-service teachers in a graduate elementary education
program Woods et al. (2014) uncovered the complex process involved in constructing a teaching
identity. The researchers surmised that the teacher candidate’s ability to integrate information
learned within the teacher education program was difficult due to feelings of insecurity and
uncertainty. An inability to integrate information learned and the development of a teaching
identity may contribute to the gap between best practices previously learned and the ability to
apply this knowledge within the early childhood/elementary classroom.
A third factor was the actual route taken by teacher candidates to pursue certification.
Among numerous studies conducted to determine the predictive validity of teacher effectiveness,
one topic of interest to researchers is the actual program certification route taken by teacher
candidates and its influence on student outcomes. Alternative certification (AC) routes were
attractive because they offered a fast track to teacher certification. AC routes require teacher
candidates to complete as few as four to eight weeks of coursework before beginning the
teaching internship (Liu et al., 2004; Solomon, 2009; Troen & Boles, 2003). This contrasts with
the yearlong work in classrooms required through a traditional certification (TC) route.
Kee (2012) studied the feelings of preparedness among AC teachers based on the role of
program features. Specifically, the researcher examined feelings of preparedness among three
distinct groups: fast-track alternative programs, residency alternative programs, and traditional
certification programs. Kee (2012) posited 20% to 30% of all new teachers had worked through
an alternative certification route. This statistic was confirmed in the National Center for
Alternative Certification annual survey (National Research Council, 2010). With the growing
number of teachers receiving AC, program effectiveness should receive careful consideration in
evaluating the current university/school divide.
As evidenced by these studies, there are several candidate level factors to consider in
understanding the current university/school divide. The first candidate level factor was the
inability of the novice teacher’s accurate appraisal of his or her teaching performance. Studies
suggest two different extremes with beginning teachers: self-assessments of their personal
Volume 1 Number 2
53
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
teaching ability that are either too high or too low. A second factor was a perceived inability to
integrate the information learned at the university level into actual classroom practices resulting
in a shift in the novice teacher’s philosophical beliefs in teaching and learning. A third factor at
the candidate level may be the actual certification route chosen by the candidate in pursuit of
teacher certification. Significant differences in teachers’ perceived levels of preparedness have
resulted in the type of certification route chosen. Although additional research holds the key to
understanding the impact of alternative certification on student outcomes, these studies provide
an entry point for beginning this conversation with policy and program stakeholders.
Finally, Hill et al. (2012) demonstrated the continuing uncertainty in predicting a
candidate’s classroom effectiveness. The authors explored the predictive validity of a
standardized test to demonstrate teacher effectiveness, but the researchers clearly demonstrated
with subsequent case studies that a standardized test was a poor indicator for correctly
identifying a teacher’s classroom practices.
Conclusion
The major findings of this literature review suggest that teacher education programs face
a tremendous task in closing the gap between educational theory and classroom application.
Multiple factors at the university, school, and teacher candidate levels are all potential
contributors to a novice teacher’s inability to demonstrate previously learned best practices
within the early childhood/elementary education classroom setting. Findings from this literature
review overwhelmingly indicate that teacher candidates need a tremendous amount of support
when it comes to implementing best practices learned at the university as well as in teacher
education programs and classroom settings.
Based on existing literature, further studies are needed to examine the effects of
innovative approaches to close the university/school divide. Insanity has often been defined as
“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Unless teacher
educators and schools of education are willing to rethink the teacher certification process, the
university/school divide will continue to grow, fostering teaching mediocrity.
References
Allsopp, D. H., DeMarie, D., Alvarez-McHatton, P., & Doone, E. (2006). Bridging the
gap between theory and practice: Connecting courses with field experiences.
Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 19-35. Retrieved from
http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2006/33_1/07allsoppetal.pdf
Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E., Basmadjian, K., & Smith, E. (2007). Bridging the
university-school divide: Horizontal expertise and the "two-worlds pitfalls." Journal of
Teacher Education, 58, 138-152. DOI:10.1177/0022487106297841
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching
elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What
makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education 59(5), 389-407.
Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student
teaching through coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14.
Volume 1 Number 2
54
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findings from a survey
of empirical literature. Washington, DC: Mathematics Association of America and the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Brown, A., Lee, J., & Collins, D. (2015). Does student teaching matter? Investigation pre-service
teachers' sense of efficacy and preparedness. Teaching Education, 26(1), 77-93.
DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2014.957666
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Byrne, C. J. (1983). Teacher knowledge and teacher effectiveness: A literature review,
theoretical analysis and discussion of research strategy. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Northwestern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (2013). Reading intervention in
middle and high schools: Implementation fidelity, teacher efficacy, and student
achievement. Reading Psychology, 34, 26-58. DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2011.577695
Chard, D., & Cibulka, J. G. (2013). The quest for better educators. Education Next, 13(4),
50-55.
Cochran-Smith, M., McQuillan, P., Mitchell, K., Terrell, D., Barnatt, J., D'Souza, L.,…
Gleeson, A.M. (2012). A longitudinal study of teaching practice and early career
decisions: A cautionary tale. American Education Research Journal, 49(5), 844-880.
DOI:10.3102/0002831211431006.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Creswell, J. W., & Plano, C. V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Danyluk, P. (2012). Preparing student teachers to be educators of children and youth:
Perspectives of associate teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 34, 500-513.
DOI:1080/01626620.2012.729478
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation
and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237-240.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57(2), 120-138.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation:
Do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education,
53(4), 286-302. DOI:10.1177/0022487102053004002.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Klein, S. P. (1999). A license to teach. Raising
standards for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Fantilli, R. D., & McDougall, D. E. (2009). A study of novice teachers: Challenges and
supports in the first years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 814-825. Retrieved
from http://dxdoi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.021.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1989). Describing teacher education: A
framework and illustrative findings from a longitudinal study of six students.
Elementary School Journal, 89, 365-377.
Gareis, C. R., & Grant, L. W. (2014). The efficacy of training cooperating teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 39(April), 77-88.
Volume 1 Number 2
55
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus,
M. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized
controlled study. NCEE 2010-4027. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Goddard, R., Hoy, W., Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure,
and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Association,
37(2), 479-507. DOI:10.3102/00028312037002479
Gordon, M. (2011). An integrated research course sequence: Empowering teacher
candidates to become researchers in their classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 33,
24-37. DOI:10.1080/01626620.2011.559423
Green, A., Kent, A., Lewis, J., Feldman, P., Motley, M., Baggett, P.,…Simpson, J. (2011).
Experiences of elementary pre-service teachers in an urban summer enrichment program.
Western Journal of Black Studies, 35(4), 227-239.
Greenberg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2011). A study of student teaching in the United
States. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
Haviland, D., Turley, S., & Shin, S. (2011) Changes over time in faculty attitudes,
confidence, and understanding as related to program assessment. Issues in Teacher
Education, 20(1) 69-84.
Hill, H., Umland, K., Litke, E., & Kapitula, L. (2012). Teacher quality and quality
teaching: Examining the relationship of a teacher assessment to practice. American
Journal of Teacher Education, 118(4), 489-519.
Ingersoll, R., & Stronge, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for
beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research,
81(2), 201-233. DOI:10.3102/0034654311403323
Izzo, M., Murray, A., Buck, A., Johnson, V., & Jimenez, E. (2015). Preparing all students for
21st century college and careers. In universal access in human-computer interaction.
access to learning, health and well-being (pp. 109-119). Springer International
Publishing.
Joshi, R., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Fahlgren, M., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. (2009).
Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392-402. DOI:10.1177/0022219409338736
Kee, A. N. (2012). Feelings of preparedness among alternatively certified teachers: What
is the role of program features? Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 23-38.
DOI:10.1177/0022487111421933.
Knoblauch, D., & Chase, M. A. (2015). Rural, suburban, and urban schools: The impact
of school setting on the efficacy beliefs and attributions of student teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 45, 104-114. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.001.
Lidstone, M.-L., & Hollingsworth, S. (1992). A longitudinal study of cognitive change in
beginning teachers: Two patterns of learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly,
19(4), 39-57. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23475135
Liu, E., Johnson, S. M., & Peske, H. G. (2004). New teachers and the Massachusetts signing
bonus: The limits of inducements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3),
217-236.
Volume 1 Number 2
56
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Meier, D. (2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons from a small school in Harlem. New
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Meristo, M., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2014). Novice teachers’ perceptions of school climate
and self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 67, 1-10. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016?j.ijer.2014.04.003
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound
policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, Committee on the Study of
Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education.
Palardy, G., & Rumberger, R. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The
importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for
student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.
DOI:10.3102/0162373708317680
Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs:
An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 4558. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss12/4
Pogodzinski, B. (2013). Collegial support and novice teachers’ perceptions of working
conditions. Journal of Educational Change, 15, 467-489.
DOI:10.1007/s10833-013-9221-x
Putnam, S. (2012). Investigating teacher efficacy: Comparing preservice and inservice
teachers with different levels of experience. Action in Teacher Education, 34, 2640. DOI:10.1080/01626620.2012.642285
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.
Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091-1106.
Roth, W-M., Mavin, T., & Dekker, S. (2014). The theory-practice gap: Epistemology,
identity, and education. Education + Training, 56(6), 521-536.
DOI:10.1108/ET-11-2012-0117.
Rozelle, J. J., & Wilson, S. M. (2012). Opening the black box of field experiences: How
cooperating teachers’ beliefs and practices shape student teachers’ beliefs and practices.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1196-1205.
Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1994). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System
(TVAAS): Mixed methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 8(1), 299-311.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on
future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee ValueAdded Research and Assessment Center. Retrieved from
http://www.mccsc.edu/~curriculum/cumulative%20and%20residual%20effects%20of%2
0teachers.pdf
Volume 1 Number 2
57
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
Schmidt, W., Cogan, L., & Houang, R. (2011). The role of opportunity to learn in teacher
preparation: An international context. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 138153. DOI:10.1177/0022487110391987
Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of
content/the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 489-504.
DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.006
Serebrin, W. (2004). Melissa’s story: Bridging the theory/practice gap in teacher
education. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, n32, 19.
Shapiro, J., & Kilbey, D. (1990). Closing the gap between theory and practice: Teacher
beliefs, instructional decisions, and critical thinking. Reading Horizons, 31(1),
59-73.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical
knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 129-135.
Solomon, J. (2009). The Boston teacher residency: District-based teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 478-488.
Summerlin, J. (2015). Closing the university/school divide: A grounded theory approach to
preparation of early childhood/elementary education teacher candidates (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Sung, Y., (2007). Are pre-service teachers constructivists in the constructivist teacher
education program? Korean Educational Development Institute Journal of Educational
Policy, 4(1), 9-24.
Superfine, A. C., & Li, W. (2014). Exploring the mathematical knowledge needed for
teaching teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 303-314.
DOI:10.1177/0022487114534265
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., &
Hawkey, K. (2006). What is a professional learning community? A summary. Department
for Education Skills.
Strong, M. (2009). Effective teacher induction and mentoring: Assessing the evidence.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stronge, J., Ward, T., & Grant, L. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case
analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339-412. DOI:10.1177/0022487111404241
Trent, J. (2012). The discursive positioning of teachers: Native-speaking English teachers
and educational discourse in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 104-126.
Troen, V., & Boles, K. (2003). Who’s teaching your children? Why the teacher crisis is
worse than you think and what can be done about it. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Unruh, L., & Holt, J. (2010). First-year teaching experiences: Are they different for
traditionally versus alternatively certified teachers? Action Teacher Education, 32(3), 314.
Volume 1 Number 2
58
Spring 2016
Summerlin, J.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A., (2008). A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80-91. DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
Washburn, E., Joshi, M., & Cantrell, E. (2011). Are preservice teachers prepared to teach
struggling readers? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 21-43. DOI:10.1007/s11881-010-00400-y
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Wood, E. (2004). A new paradigm war? The impact of national curriculum policies on
early childhood teacher’s thinking and classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20, 361-374. DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.014.
Woods, D., Barksdale, M. A., Triplett, C. F., & Potts, A. (2014). The teacher in me
exploring preservice teacher identity through self-portraits. Journal for Multicultural
Education, 8(2), 112-136. DOI:10.1108/JME-01-2014-0003
Yilmaz, C. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instructional
strategies. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39, 91-100.
DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.1.9110.2224/sbp.2011.39.1.91
Zimper, N. L., & Howey, K. R. (2013). Creating 21st-centry centers of pedagogy:
Explicating key laboratory and clinical elements of teacher preparation. Education,
133(4), 409-421.
Volume 1 Number 2
59
Spring 2016
Leland, C. H., Ociepka, A., & Mennonno, A.
“This Is How We Get Along”: Transmediation as a Tool for Thinking
Christine H. Leland
Indiana University IUPUI
Anne Ociepka
Indiana University IUPUI
Ann Mennonno
Indianapolis Public Schools
Art can be a powerful tool for making meaning. This article describes what happened when first
and second graders were challenged to draw a picture that symbolized the meaning of three
stories that focused on difference.
Keywords: critical literacy, transmediation, critical stance
Introduction
Students of all ages like to hear a good read aloud. At the end of the book, they look up
expectantly to see what’s next. Will they be invited to share their thoughts about the book with
their classmates? Will they draw a picture that shows their favorite part or makes a connection to
their own lives? Or will someone check their comprehension by asking them to retell the story?
These are the most common follow-up requests we have both used ourselves and seen other
teachers use after reading aloud. Students are usually happy to dive right in and do what is asked.
Recently, however, we have been asking both elementary school children and our university preservice teachers to “draw a picture that symbolizes what the story means.” This request
frequently leads to raised eyebrows and questions, regardless of student ages or levels. Many
look puzzled and someone usually asks, “How can I do that? How can I draw what the story
means?”
The help we provide to both children and adults begins with a conversation about
symbols−what they are and how they make meaning. Referring to common symbols they already
know is a good place to start: hearts, smiley faces, peace signs, objects in circles with slashes
through them, etc. We spend some time discussing their suggestions and then challenge them to
create their own symbols to express what they see as an important meaning for the story they just
heard. We further explain that drawing a picture that symbolizes the underlying meaning of a
story is not the same as drawing a picture of their favorite part of the story as they have done in
the past. This more complex activity is known as transmediation.
Volume 1 Number 2
60
Spring 2016
Transmediation
The process of transmediation involves taking something one could talk or write about
using words and moving that knowledge into another sign system like art, music, dance, or
drama (Siegel, 1984; Suhor, 1984;). A related teaching strategy called Sketch to Stretch (Short &
Harste, with Burke, 1996) focuses on art and invites students to sketch images that make
connections between specific books and their own lives. Moving across sign systems has been
shown to help students deepen their understanding and generate new insights (Leland & Harste,
1994). Research on transmediation has shown how less capable readers were able to reposition
themselves as more successful learners when multiple sign systems were available and seen as
appropriate ways to respond (Clyde, 1994; Leland, Harste, & Helt, 2000; Siegel, 2006).
The study of signs is known as semiotics (Halliday, 1978). Siegel (2006) defined
semiotics as “an inter-disciplinary field of studies that examines how meaning is made through
signs of all kinds−pictures, gestures, music−not just words” (p. 65). Although American
educators have historically focused on language as the dominant way of making meaning, other
modes like art, music, drama, and mathematics can be used as well. Cowan and Albers (2006)
argued, “a semiotic approach to literacy enables learners to develop richer and more complex
literacy practices” (p. 124). Others have provided evidence to support the idea that the ability to
“read pictures” has a positive effect on both children’s overall reading comprehension (O’Neil,
2011) and their ability to communicate meaning through art (Martens, P., Martens, R., Doyle,
Loomis, & Aghalaroo, 2012).
Viewing children’s literature through a semiotic lens prepares students to deal with the
images and messages of popular culture more thoughtfully and critically. In describing what 21st
century literacies require, Morrell (2012) stated, “Students will need to learn to interpret images
and sounds in addition to print texts” (p. 302). The importance of images is also articulated by
Kress (2003), who identified “a vast change…underway, with as yet unknowable consequences”
(p. 22). What makes this change so significant for educators is the movement from a text-based
form of making meaning to an image-based form of making meaning. The goal of using
multimodal channels to make meaning is echoed in the work of the New London Group (1996)
and more recently in the English Language Arts Common Core. One of the Anchor Standards for
Reading articulates the need for students to “integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse
media and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words” CCSS.ELALiteracy.CCRA.R.7.
Asking students to symbolize the meaning of a story requires them to construct signs. In
an earlier study with third graders (Leland, Ociepka, & Wackerly, 2015), some children drew
broken chains and birthday cakes to symbolize freedom after hearing Henry’s Freedom Box
(Levine, 2007). This book tells the story of Henry Brown, a slave who gained his freedom when
friends in the Underground Railroad nailed him into a wooden crate and sent it on a ship to
Philadelphia. The abolitionists who received the box with Henry in it called the day of his arrival
his first birthday−since slaves typically did not celebrate birthdays or even know when their
birthdays were. While the pictures in this book did not show cakes, candles, or balloons, some
third graders perceived them as signs of a birthday and used them as symbols of Henry’s
freedom (Figure 1).
Volume 1 Number 2
61
Spring 2016
Figure 1. Birthday party as symbol for freedom.
Another third grader drew two pairs of hands−one with unbroken chains on them and one with
broken chains−to symbolize Henry’s transition from slavery to freedom.
Context and Procedure
This article presents findings from a study that followed our work with third graders over
two years (Leland et al., 2015). After receiving questions from teachers about how younger
children might respond to working with symbols, we decided to repeat the same procedure and
data analysis with first and second graders. We were not interested in comparing the products
from the different age groups. Rather, we were interested in seeing what younger children would
do with the same prompt: “[d]raw a picture that symbolizes what the story means.”
Critical Social Practices
Since a semiotic lens can be helpful in making meaning, it also plays a role in addressing
the goal of teaching children to be critical users of various sign systems and forms of
communication. The “Instructional Model of Critical Literacy” (Leland, Lewison, & Harste,
2013; Lewison, Leland, & Harste, 2015) describes critical literacy instruction as a process that
includes attention to personal and cultural resources, critical social practices, and the stance one
enacts in both the classroom and the world. Critical social practices have been defined in terms
of four dimensions: (1) disrupting the commonplace (for example, questioning the assumption
that bullying is acceptable because “boys will be boys”); (2) interrogating multiple perspectives;
(3) focusing on sociopolitical issues; and (4) taking action to promote social justice (Lewison,
Flint, & Van Sluys, 2002). In this case, the model influenced our choice of cultural resources
(books that highlight social justice issues) and later provided one perspective for analyzing the
children’s meaning making.
Volume 1 Number 2
62
Spring 2016
Context and Procedure
Ann Mennono teaches in a large urban school district. At the time of this study, she was
working in a multiage first/second grade classroom. Her public school has a diverse socioeconomic population including minority students of varying backgrounds: 33% Latino/a, 24%
African American, 10% multiracial, and 5% Asian. Additionally, 49% of the students in her
school receive free or reduced lunch. Ann’s school is a magnet option program with a focus on
learning through inquiry. Admission into the magnet program is based on parental request and a
lottery system.
Education as inquiry is built on the assumption that learning takes place through a
continuing spiral of knowing (Short et al., 1996). There is no required basal reading program in
the school, and teachers are free to choose from a wide variety of fiction and non-fiction
literature for reading instruction. Ann’s classroom is filled with books and her students enjoy
frequent interactions with them. Within the inquiry program, Ann also characterizes her literacyrich curriculum as having a critical perspective (Leland et al., 2013) since students are frequently
asked to consider whose voice is being heard in books, news stories, daily classroom activities,
etc. The other two authors are teacher educators at a public university located in the same urban
area. The three of us worked with groups of children in Ann’s classroom over a six-week period
and collected samples of student work.
Anchor Texts: Books about Tough Social Issues
Children’s literature opens up spaces for conversations about difficult social issues. We
think of some books as being “edgy” because they deal with topics that are often seen as difficult
(or inappropriate) to address with children. These books frequently focus on social justice issues
like racism, homophobia, poverty, etc. They also provide what Bishop (1990) described as
windows and mirrors. Windows encourage readers to look out and learn about others who are
different while mirrors encourage them to look in and see themselves. Mirrors are particularly
important because “all children who read or are read to need to see themselves reflected as part
of humanity” (Bishop, 1992, p. 114). This underscores the importance of finding books that
show people from non-mainstream groups in positive, non-stereotypical ways (Leland et al.,
2013). While some teachers are not comfortable discussing difficult social issues with young
children, others are very interested in talking about what is fair and what is not (e.g., Kuby, 2011;
Vasquez, 2004).
For the first/second grade project reported here, we selected picture books that focused on
difference.
• Feathers and Fools (Fox, 1989): Swans and the peacocks living in close proximity
worry about how different they are and end up being afraid and suspicious of each other.
In a misguided attempt to preserve peace, they make and hide large amounts of sharp
arrows. But when a non-aggressive move on one side is misunderstood as an attack by
the other side, they turn their arrows against each other with disastrous consequences. At
the end of the battle, the ground is stained with blood and all of the birds are dead. But
then two eggs hatch. The baby peacock and baby swan see their similarities and become
friends.
Volume 1 Number 2
63
Spring 2016
• Molly’s Family (Garden, 2004): Molly runs into trouble when she tells her kindergarten
class about her two mothers. While some of Molly’s classmates argue that she
cannot have two moms, a skillful teacher helps them to see that there are all types of
families.
• Oliver Button Is a Sissy (DePaola, 1979): Because Oliver likes dancing and playing
with dolls, his classmates call him a sissy. But after he enters a contest and shows what a
great dancer he is, they change their minds and say that he’s a star, not a sissy.
While all three of these books have hopeful endings, they also have underlying tensions that are
not easily dismissed.
Each book was introduced to the children following the same procedure. During a 50minute period every two weeks, Ann began by engaging the children in a conversation about
symbols. They talked about what symbols are and how they use pictures to carry meaning.
Children brought up symbols they already knew (hearts, smiley faces, peace signs, etc.) and
brainstormed about how to think of new symbols to go with other ideas. Before beginning each
book, Ann asked the children to think about symbols that might go with the new story they were
about to hear. She did not initiate conversations about the events of the stories while reading,
which was a change from her normal procedure. But children were not stopped from making
unsolicited comments about the stories, as this was something they normally did. At the end of
each book, Ann reminded her students to think about the symbols they already knew and
challenged them to generate others. She encouraged them to talk with others in their group and
share ideas, assuring them that there was no right answer and any drawing would be accepted.
The children then returned to their seats, which were arranged in table groups of four to
six students. Since there was an adult sitting with each table group, Ann also asked the children
to write or dictate a caption that explained their thinking. The adults (researchers and teaching
interns) took notes on what the children said and tried to get all of them engaged in the
discussion and drawing activity. If children were hesitant to participate, the adults encouraged
them to talk with others about what they were drawing and then to draw whatever they were
thinking about after hearing the story. All of the adults noted that the combination of talking and
drawing appeared to fuel the children’s thinking in terms of generating new ideas. The more they
talked, the more they drew.
Findings
All of the children’s pictures from across the three books were assessed according to the
taxonomy created to describe the levels of meaning making found in the drawings for the earlier
third grade study (Leland et al., 2015). These levels are summarized in Table 1. We found a
number of examples at each level and describe a sample of them here.
Volume 1 Number 2
64
Spring 2016
Table 1
Levels of Meaning Making
Level
Level One: Literal.
Level Two: Personal
Level Three: Common icons
Level Four: Original symbols
Description
The picture or explanation of the picture is similar to what was in
the text.
The picture or explanation shows the student making a personal
connection to the text.
The picture or explanation includes common icons used
symbolically.
The picture or explanation includes original symbols that go
beyond the text.
Level One: A literal picture/explanation of the text. Responses at this level simply
reproduced something from the story. Figure 2 shows a drawing that Caleb (pseudonym)
described as “sharp feathers and blood on the ground after the battle” in Feathers and Fools.
Based on notes taken from the various table groups, the topic of blood was deemed worthy of
discussion by a number of children. Several drawings were similar to an abstract picture of a
pool of blood in the text.
Figure 2. Feathers and blood.
Zach’s picture of Oliver Button next to the sign saying he was a star is another example of a
level one response. His picture was also very similar to an illustration in the book.
Volume 1 Number 2
65
Spring 2016
Level Two: A personal connection to the text. Responses at this level showed the children
relating something that happened in the story to something in their own lives. For example, Mark
responded to Oliver Button Is a Sissy by drawing side-by-side pictures of him playing first with a
doll and then with a football. He made a personal connection by saying that he is like Oliver
when he plays with his doll but he also likes to play football. He said he did not understand why
boys could not play with both kinds of toys (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Mark with doll and football.
Emma’s level two response was a Venn diagram with pictures of the characters in Molly’s
Family on one side and Emma’s family on the other side. Emma said that Molly’s two moms
reminded her that she has two dads and two moms, although she lives with one dad and one
mom and only visits the others. While she did not address the idea of having two moms and no
dad specifically, Emma’s picture suggests that she was thinking about the idea that not all
families look the same.
Level Three: Common icons used symbolically. Student examples at this level included
the use of common symbols like hearts, smiley faces, sad faces, and peace signs. It is important
to note that these signs were not constructed independently by students but are ideological in
terms of how they “carry the beliefs of…community and culture” (Cowan & Albers, 2006, p.
126). In one level three example, Gus drew a dove and identified it as a symbol for peace, even
though doves were not represented in the book. He went on to say that in Feathers and Fools, the
birds were neither peaceful nor smart and that was why they ended up killing each other (Figure
4).
Volume 1 Number 2
66
Spring 2016
Figure 4. Dove as a symbol for peace.
In another level three example, Amber drew a collection of common symbols and
explained how they connected with Oliver Button Is a Sissy. The happy face was for when Oliver
was dancing in the show, the sad face (with tears!) was for when other kids called him a sissy,
the heart was for Oliver’s love for dancing, and the star was the symbol for Oliver being a star.
The words “sissy” and “bully” were written inside separate circles with a slash through them to
signify her view of the book’s meaning: Name-calling is not acceptable.
Level Four: Symbols go beyond the text to send a larger message. Pictures and
explanations at this level showed children generating original symbols that transcended the text
they experienced as a read aloud. For example, Dee’s picture for Feathers and Fools showed two
purple hands with a rainbow over them. She explained that the hands symbolized friendship: “If
they [swans and peacocks] weren’t afraid of each other, they could have been friends” (Figure
5).
Figure 5. Hands as a symbol for friendship.
Volume 1 Number 2
67
Spring 2016
A message of hope was also apparent in Joe’s level four picture. It shows a figure (identified by
an arrow as “a bully”) being crushed by a larger peace sign. He explained that his picture
included people standing next to each other all around the earth and this means we all need to
work together to crush bullies and get peace. We saw both of these drawings as going beyond the
actual text.
Figure 6. Peace sign crushing bully.
Table 2 shows the number of responses in each category. Based on our taxonomy, first
and second grade children produced an impressive number of higher-level responses over the
three books. Working with common cultural symbols (24/56 or 43% of the responses) was the
most popular activity. This might have been due to the novelty of the idea or because children
were using symbols (as they had been asked to do) but could only get that far. The second
highest category was responses that achieved the goal of generating original symbols to show the
perceived meaning of the story, 13/56 or 23%. In all, 66% of first and second grade responses
showed students actively working with symbols.
Volume 1 Number 2
68
Spring 2016
Table 2
Results
Levels of Meaning Making
Level One: Literal
Level Two: Personal
Level Three: Common Icons
Level Four: Symbols Go Beyond Text
Number of Responses
8
11
24
13
Evidence of Children Taking a Critical Stance
In reviewing the drawings, we also considered the extent to which we found children
taking on critical social practices. Returning to the four dimensions mentioned earlier (disrupting
the commonplace, interrogating multiple perspectives, focusing on sociopolitical issues, and
taking action to promote social justice) we identified several instances of critical social practices.
For example, many children challenged commonplace norms regarding which toys and activities
are appropriate for boys. They drew sad faces to show how they felt about Oliver getting bullied
and several said it was not fair to treat him like that. Grace drew a muscle to symbolize how “the
girls were strong role models. They helped Oliver put his tap shoes back on and they told him
not to listen to the boys who were bullying him.” While she did not use the term “ally”
(Christensen, 2009; Leland et al., 2013) to describe the role the girls in the story took, the idea of
providing support for someone who is being marginalized was implicit.
The belief that it is not okay to bully someone who is different also emerged in several
responses to Molly’s Family. Becca drew a sad face to show how Molly felt and what she called
“a mean face” as a sign for Tommy, the boy in the book who insisted that Molly could not have
two mommies. Katie drew a series of multi-colored hearts and explained her picture by saying,
“Not all love looks the same. All the hearts are for different kinds of love and different kinds of
families.” We saw this stance as disrupting commonplace assumptions held by some people
about the superiority of traditional nuclear families.
While disrupting commonplace ideas was the critical social practice seen most
frequently, we also found at least one example of a student talking about the need to take social
action: After hearing Oliver Button Is a Sissy, one group engaged in an extended conversation
about whether it is ever acceptable for boys to play with dolls. Some thought the gender of the
doll made a difference; it was okay for boys to play with boy dolls, but not girl dolls. Mark stated
that he would never play with a doll because “people would laugh at me.” But when asked, “If
people wouldn’t laugh at you, would you like to play with a doll?” he said “yes.” At that point,
Alex spoke up and said, “I would tell people not to laugh at Mark even if he’s playing with a girl
doll.” We coded this statement as an instance of Alex taking social action to challenge what he
saw as unjust treatment.
We were surprised to discover that the children also engaged in a good bit of retelling of
the stories while working on their drawings, even though their teacher did not ask them to do
this. In their attempts to generate symbols for the meaning of stories, many children drew a series
of pictures to show what happened in different parts of the books. As they talked about their
symbols, they were also reviewing the events of the stories. The children seemed to use retelling
the story as a way to support their thinking about symbols. We found it interesting that the
Volume 1 Number 2
69
Spring 2016
multimodal transmediation activity gave us not only symbolic thinking, but also the summaries
many teachers see as important.
Conclusions
Perhaps our more significant finding was that children used the process of transmediation
as a tool to build their understanding of the various stories. Our conclusions echo those of Short,
Kauffman, & Kahn (2000) who observed: “…in our work with response to literature, we no
longer do cute art or drama activities with a book. Instead, students use sign systems as tools for
thinking about a book and for sharing their thinking with others” (p. 169). In this case, first and
second graders used drawing as a tool for thinking, not as a cute activity. We also agree with
Harste and Kress (2012) that “Semiotics is a lens, and it provides tools that our teachers will find
useful” (p. 208). One of our favorite tools in the semiotic kit is transmediation.
In keeping with the tool metaphor, we end with Ron’s picture for Oliver Button Is a Sissy
(Figure 7). Ron drew a set of tools (hammer, nails, wrench, saw) and explained that they
symbolized “building new relationships and this is how to get along.” We think Ron is right. We
do need tools to build new relationships and get along, both with other people and with the texts
we encounter.
Figure 7. Tools as a symbol for building new relationships.
Although the first and second graders in Ann’s classroom were initially puzzled by her
request for them to use symbols, they responded with enthusiasm once they got their heads
around the idea. Their drawings provide evidence of them using symbols as tools for exploring
and sharing their insights about the books. While it was never our purpose to compare their work
Volume 1 Number 2
70
Spring 2016
to that of the older students, many of them demonstrated their capacity to think symbolically at
Level Four. These findings suggest that transmediation is not just for adults or older students.
With a little support, young children can use symbols as tools for “building new relationships,”
as Ron noted. His conclusion that “this is how we get along” sums it up quite eloquently.
References
Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 6(3), ix-xi.
Bishop, R. S. (1992). Multicultural literature for children, making informed choices. In V. J.
Harris (Ed.), Teaching multicultural literature in grades K-8 (pp. 109-123). Norwood, MA:
Christopher Gordon.
Christensen, L. (2009). Teaching for joy and justice: Re-imagining the language arts curriculum.
Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools.
Clyde, J. A. (1994). Lessons from Douglas: Expanding our visions of what it means to
"know." Language Arts, 71(1), 22-34.
Cowan, K., & Albers, P. (2006). Semiotic representations: Building complex literacy practices
through the arts. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 124-137.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language
and meaning. New York: Edward Arnold.
Harste, J., & Kress, G. (2012). Conversation currents: Image, identity, and insights into
language. Language Arts, 89(3), 205-10.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.
Kuby, C. (2011). Humpty Dumpty and Rosa Parks: Making space for critical dialogue with 5and 6-year-olds. Young Children, 66(5), 36-43
Lewison, M., Flint, A., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of
newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 79(5), 382-392.
Lewison, M., Leland, C., & Harste, J. (2015). Creating critical classrooms: Reading and writing
with an edge. (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum.
Leland, C., Ociepka, A., & Wackerly, A. (2015). How do you draw freedom? Transmediating
edgy picture books with third graders. The Reading Teacher, 68(8), 618-626.
Leland, C., Lewison, M., & Harste, J. (2013). Teaching children’s literature: It’s critical! New
York, NY: Routledge.
Leland, C., Harste , J., & Helt, C. (2000). Multiple ways of knowing: Lessons from a blue
guitar. In M. Gallego & S. Hollingsworth (Eds.), What counts as literacy: Challenging
the school standard (pp. 106-117). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Leland, C., & Harste, J. (1994 ). Multiple ways of knowing: Curriculum in a new key. Language
Arts, 71(5), 337-345.
Martens, P., Martens, R., Doyle, M., Loomis, J., & Aghalaroo, S. (2012). Learning from
picturebooks: Reading and writing multimodally in first grade. The Reading
Teacher, 66(4), 285-293.
Morrell, E. (2012). 21st century literacies, critical media pedagogies, and language arts. The
Reading Teacher, 66(4), 300-302.
Volume 1 Number 2
71
Spring 2016
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 60-92.
O’Neil, K. (2011). Reading pictures: Developing visual literacy for greater comprehension. The
Reading Teacher, 56(3), 214-223.
Short, K., & Harste, J., with Burke, C. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers
(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Short, K., Kauffman, G., & Kahn, L. (2000). “I just need to draw”: Responding to literature
across multiple sign systems. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 162-171.
Siegel, M. (1984). Reading as signification. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN.
Siegel, M. (2006). Rereading the signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy
education. Language Arts, 84(1), 65-75.
Suhor, C. (1984). Towards a semiotics-based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3),
247-257.
Vasquez, V. (2004). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Literature Cited
DePaola, T. (1979). Oliver Button is a sissy. Boston: Harcourt.
Fox, M. (1989). Feathers and fools. Foston: Harcourt.
Garden, N. (2004). Molly’s family. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Levine, E. (2007). Henry’s freedom box. New York: Scholastic.
Volume 1 Number 2
72
Spring 2016

- University of Alabama at Birmingham

Transcription

Similar documents

Credo Reference Discovery Session WALDO, March 12, 2012

Links to Literacy

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

Spring

details.

Ashburton Learning Centre – Walking the Talk

Professional Guidance from a Master Teacher

Annonce S1

The Marie M. Clay List

Think Big_Routman